Iraq

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many times since 1 January 2005 the Prime Minister has discussed the situation in Iraq with President Bush.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the Prime Minister has maintained a regular dialogue about Iraq with President Bush.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I was not expecting much more than that. I realise the difficulty of answering my Question, but could she at least assure us that this continuous dialogue has reflected the changing situation in Iraq; for example, the conditions in Basra, where British troops are, which seem to get worse day by day, and the sad fact that the presence of US and UK troops in Iraq seems to be becoming increasingly unacceptable to most Iraqis?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I can certainly assure the noble Lord that the dialogue reflects the changing reality in Iraq, especially in Basra and, of course, in relation to the sad violence taking place every day.
	As noble Lords know, the UK is committed to a conditions-based withdrawal of troops; that continues to be our policy. We will be there as long as the Iraqis need us. As the Iraqi security forces take over, our gradual withdrawal will happen at different times in different places.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I revert to a question that I asked in the House about a year ago. How many meetings of the Defence and Overseas Policy Committee have been held on Iraq in the past six months?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, forgive me; I do not have that information to hand. I will write to the noble Lord with the utmost urgency.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I assure the Government that we on these Benches are extremely glad that the United States appears to have listened to the British, French and Germans on opening a dialogue with Iran, in sharp contrast to the lack of evidence that the Bush Administration have listened to their British partners on policy towards Iraq.
	One reads in the US press that NATO is taking over from the United States in Afghanistan, which is an interesting misdefinition of what NATO is about. Are we also now in active dialogue with the United States about the future of shared policy in Afghanistan?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, yes. We are in discussion with the United States about a shared policy on Afghanistan and the role of NATO at this very moment.

Lord Quirk: My Lords, in view of the difficulties outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, with the current situation in Iraq—even in the southern part around Basra—is it not remarkable that the British Council has a two-site operation in Iraq: one in Baghdad, the other in Basra itself? Can the Minister tell us anything about the relationship between the operation there and in Jordan, and how much of it is, in fact, carried out from Jordan?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, like the noble Lord, I welcome the fact that the British Council has a two-site operation in Iraq. I am unable to tell him how much work is carried on there, and how much in Jordan, but I undertake to inform him in writing. I am sure that if, at present, a greater percentage of the work is carried on in Jordan than in Iraq, then, as security conditions in Iraq improve, that balance will change, and more of the efforts will be undertaken in Iraq.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that we all share the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, about the level of violence, particularly in Baghdad and Basra. Can the Minister tell us a little more about what is happening in the north of the country? At a recent meeting in London, women representatives from the north of the country, particularly from Erbil and Kirkuk, said that they felt that there was less violence there and that there were more opportunities for trade and commercial activity. Can the Minister endorse that view, or does she take a contrary view?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct. I am pleased to say that security incidents in the north are generally less severe and are far fewer than in other parts of the country. That is not to say that those areas have been spared attacks; they have not. There are still attacks by those who are intent on undermining the country's stability. The people of northern Iraq are clearly committed to the political process, as are all Iraqis, and the establishment of the government is a huge step forward, which will strengthen economic development. I am pleased to say that GDP growth in Iraq for 2006 is projected at over 10 per cent.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, has the specific question of rebuilding Iraq, and the efforts made towards that, been engaging the Prime Minister and Mr Bush?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the reconstruction efforts have been engaging the Prime Minister and President Bush in discussion.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, the Prime Minister has confirmed that coalition forces will remain in Iraq only so long as the Iraqis request their presence there. As more and more Iraqis are now saying that the presence of coalition forces contributes more to the problem than to the solution, has the Parliament—as distinct from the Government—of Iraq yet debated the question of the presence of coalition forces in Iraq?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I do not know whether it has yet discussed it, but I will seek to find out and will inform the noble Lord. The Government in Iraq are saying that they wish the troops to remain. However, I understand the differentiation made by the noble Lord.

Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon: My Lords, do the Government accept that the Iraq problem is less likely to be sorted out within Iraq and more likely to be sorted out as part of a broader regional solution? If they do, as the Minister seems to indicate, can she tell us whether Washington takes the same view?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I am sure that Washington takes the same view and that, like us, it will welcome the fact that the Iraqi-led, Arab League-sponsored national accord conference will result in active engagement with members of the Arab League. We hope that very soon there will be a compact, led by the Iraqi Government and the UN, that will draw in members of the wider international community to support Iraq as it progresses.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, in the light of the recent criticism by the Iraqi Prime Minister, what ethical training do our troops receive before they go to Iraq regarding interaction with the various communities? Has that training been discussed with their US counterparts?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, our troops receive the training suggested by the noble Baroness. I am unable to say whether they receive the same training as US troops or are trained with US troops, but I will inform the noble Baroness.

BBC: Trust Members

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What public appointments procedures will be in place for selecting the eight new BBC Trust members who are to be appointed this year?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the eight new BBC Trust members will be appointed by the Queen on the advice of government following an open and transparent competition. The selection process will be based on Nolan principles and will take account of the guidance of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Vacancies have been advertised in the national press, and we hope that a diverse range of high quality candidates will apply.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that partially helpful reply. However, does he recall that, when the current chairman of the BBC was appointed, not only were Nolan principles applied but the then Commissioner for Public Appointments, my noble friend Lady Fritchie, convened a scrutiny panel of three members who, together with herself, specifically oversaw the process? In light of the acknowledged specific interest of licence fee payers in the BBC's new forms of governance and especially in these eight appointments, would it not be appropriate to adopt a comparably independent scrutiny procedure in this case?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as I emphasised in my opening Answer, Nolan principles will apply. The selection panel will consist of a DCMS director, the chairman, Michael Grade, and an independent assessor.

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury: My Lords, in her evidence to the Select Committee on the BBC charter review, the Secretary of State said:
	"I think what is important is that those who are appointed to the Trust reflect the new nature of the BBC Trust, the fact that it is different from the Board of Governors".
	Yet three existing governors are being transferred to the trust. Can the Minister explain how those appointments can possibly be described as reflecting anything new?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, three existing members and the chairman are continuing. There are eight new members; that is twice as many new members as those continuing. The House will recognise that with an organisation as significant as the BBC some element of continuity is advisable, but eight new members will be expected to apply against the widely published criteria.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is some concern that the interview panel is chaired by a DCMS official—and, of course, at the end appointments are made by the Secretary of State? However, leaving that aside, will the Minister join me in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, on his appointment by the Secretary of State as deputy chairman of Channel 4—an appointment that of course we approve of? Does that not prove that the process of appointment is open, transparent and rigorous?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it gives me untold joy to agree with the opposition Front Bench on the second part of the question. On the first, it is clear that the responsibility eventually is for the Secretary of State to make a recommendation to Her Majesty the Queen. The process followed by the Government was, let me say, pursued in similar terms by the previous one.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I declare an interest as a former vice-chairman of the BBC, appointed on the recommendation of the then Government. I recognise what my noble friend has in his brief, but what does he see as the practical difference between governors and trustees?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, everything that I have in my brief I firmly believe. The practical difference is clear: for the first time in statute the objectives of the BBC and its obligations will be laid out. Those applying to become members of the trust know what those obligations are; they will be expected to fulfil those obligations by the licence fee payer; and of course they will be selected because of the contribution that they can make to the interests of the licence fee payer.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, at present, BBC Northern Ireland, BBC Wales and BBC Scotland are represented on the board of governors. Can the Minister give an assurance that when the new trustees are appointed Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will have their own representation?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, one of the members continuing over to the trust from the previous board of governors is in fact the Scottish member. I can give the noble Lord an assurance that Wales and Northern Ireland will be represented—and England.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will the trust cost any more or any less than the previous board of governors?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will agree that the only criterion is value for money. On cost, if he means remuneration to the trustees, it is being increased. It is being increased to a level comparable with Ofcom, which noble Lords, especially on the Opposition Benches, often argue has a very close parallel to the functions of the BBC Trust. So there is an increase for the chairman, the vice-chairman and trust members. It is of course for them to fulfil their remit to justify the increase.

Lord Fowler: My Lords, the trust is one of the most controversial proposals in the White Paper on the charter. Do I understand that the vacancies are being advertised prior to any consideration by either House of Parliament?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the vacancies are being advertised because it is not considered that Parliament will repudiate the concept of a trust, as the noble Lord will recognise. We have had debates in the other place and in this House, and the Government have indicated commitment to those terms. However, the appointments will not be concluded until there has been an additional debate in this House, which is to take place in less than a fortnight, and further deliberations in the other place.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, what precautions will be taken to ensure that people are not appointed as trustees who would be in favour of using licence fees to undermine private newspaper and radio companies throughout the United Kingdom? I declare an interest.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the obligation of the trustees is to the general interest of licence payers. That will be in the context of what is good for the nation. After all, the BBC serves the nation.

Tax Credits

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What measures they intend to take with respect to the administration of tax credits by HM Revenue and Customs.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, HM Revenue and Customs has made good progress in response to the plan announced last year by my right honourable friend the Paymaster-General in another place to improve the administration of tax credits. The Government will respond to the report published by the Treasury Select Committee yesterday in due course. HMRC will continue to work to deliver the best possible service for tax credit claimants.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, the past two years' statistics show that HM Revenue and Customs got payments right in only 55 per cent of cases; that, every year, it overpaid 2 million families their tax credits; and that, in the past year, 2004–05, underpayments increased by 20 per cent. Does the Minister agree with the Treasury Select Committee in another place that the Pre-Budget Report changes will reduce overpayments by only one third and will do nothing to address the issue of underpayments, which affects more than 1 million families? Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will put an end to that shambles in this financial year?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I do not agree with the points made by the noble Baroness. On her comments about the outcome of payments being right or wrong, she misunderstands the system. It is a flexible, responsive system that inevitably leads at the end of the year to both underpayments and overpayments. That does not mean that they are errors.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord McKenzie of Luton: It does not, my Lords. The figure of 30 per cent is one that the Government themselves put forward. Other measures announced in the Pre-Budget Report will help to deal with other problems that the system has undoubtedly encountered. However, I remind the House that this has been an ambitious system that has delivered three key achievements. It has improved incentives to work; it has reduced the tax burden on low- to middle-income families; and it has helped dramatically to reduce child poverty.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, if a system had an inherent design flaw so that a programme of £16 billion resulted in an overspend first of £2.7 billion and then of £1.7 billion, would that not be rather serious? Secondly, does the Minister recollect that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs originally estimated that the disregard—that is, the amount by which a person's income can increase without his benefit being refunded, even if he would not have qualified for that benefit in the first place—would be £800 million? Since then, the disregard has been increased from £2,500 to an astonishing £25,000 per person. Does that not show that the scheme is not targeted, is burning money and ought to be radically reconsidered? You do not get around the problem by saying that overpayments are not overpayments.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I did not say that overpayments were not overpayments; I said that they were not inevitably errors. If you seek to adjust people's income in the course of the year by changes that happen in the course of that year, you have to bear it in mind that some of that can happen in the course of the year, but some of it will inevitably happen at the end of the year. It is not a design fault; it was recognised when the system was put into place.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will take his kid gloves off and start telling some opposition Members some of the facts of life. He should certainly not accept any lessons in arithmetic from the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, whose record we all still remember well.

Noble Lords: Not here!

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I meant the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. It is the same difference; they made the same sorts of mistakes.
	Can the Minister now answer the question about tax credits and point out to the Opposition some of the benefits that have accrued from tax credits, such as the number of families and pensioners taken out of poverty, and perhaps give the noble Baroness the sort of drubbing that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister gave to the Leader of the Opposition at Question Time today?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I hesitate to be as robust as my noble friend, but I am happy to try to comply with what he says. Tax credits benefit 6 million families with 10 million children. So far as tackling child poverty is concerned, since 1996–97, 700,000 children have been lifted out of relative poverty compared with a doubling of child poverty in the previous 20 years—the record of Members opposite. There are now over 1.8 million fewer children in absolute low-income families compared with 1996–97.
	The tax burden on a single-earner couple with two children earning £21,000 has fallen from 17.3 per cent of gross earnings in 1997 to 9.8 per cent in 2004. That is the lowest rate of any G7 country. That is what tax credits are about.

Lord Newby: My Lords, will the Minister accept that many people find the attitude of the Treasury on the issue arrogant and complacent? In the constituency of a colleague of mine in another place, 1,800 of his 46,000 constituents have been overpaid by more than £2,000. Is not the truth simply that the system is not fit for purpose?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: No, my Lords, that is not the position. As I explained earlier, initially there were issues about the IT programme in particular and the administration. The changes that were introduced following the Pre-Budget Report are designed to address those issues and will improve the position. If we do not have a tax credit system, what is the alternative? Let me pick up the point about the view of Members opposite who seek to attack the system. I think that it was George Osborne in another place who said:
	"I do not acknowledge that the present tax credit system has helped in the reduction of child poverty".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/7/05; col. 704.]
	Let me also quote David Cameron from another place:
	"I long for a chancellor who stands up and introduces a Budget which abolishes all of Brown's endless reliefs and credits—and uses the money to cut tax rates at the same time".
	Is that now the official policy of the Opposition?

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, we have already heard from two Conservatives. It is the turn of Members on this side.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend would agree that if lone parents in particular experience changes in circumstances, perhaps as many as a dozen in the course of a year, and yet the tax credit sum is adjusted only at the end of the year—just as happens with taxpayers—then inevitably there will be overpayments and underpayments, which are not errors but part of the structure. Does my noble friend agree that a lone parent on a minimum wage of just over £5 an hour will, as a result of tax credits, now take home pay at a rate of £10 an hour—being paid a man's wage? Is that not transforming for two generations—both the parent and the child?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I agree absolutely with my noble friend.

Community Cohesion

Lord Greaves: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will respond to the report of the Review of Community Cohesion in Oldham, Challenging Local Communities to Change Oldham, led by Professor Ted Cantle.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we welcome the publication of this report, which was commissioned by Oldham council. It recognises that Oldham and its partners have done a great deal to build community cohesion there since 2001. Despite that, the Government and Oldham Council recognise that there is no room for complacency. We remain committed to working with communities across the country and with the public, private and voluntary sectors, including faith communities, to help deliver real change in the future.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I welcome that reply and this report, which is full of good sense. When the disturbances took place in various northern towns five years ago, a series of reports was produced—one by Professor Cantle for the Government and others for Bradford, Burnley and Oldham—which pointed out the dangers of what were then called "parallel communities", where people live side by side but do not really interact. This report emphasises that,
	"segregated communities are an untenable basis upon which to build social cohesion".
	Will the Government underline that message? The report continues:
	"If there is one area we would highlight above all others in building community cohesion for the future, it is involving, engaging and mobilising Oldham's communities to take greater responsibility for change".
	Do the Government agree that it is time for the communities themselves to take the lead and not just rely on public authorities?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, all noble Lords can take comfort from the comment in the report that,
	"few cities, towns or districts have done as much as Oldham in seeking to build community cohesion".
	Over the past three or four years we have seen major developments in partnership building, reducing disadvantage and communities perceiving themselves as being more cohesive. All that is good news, but the noble Lord is right to point out that the report observes that real change means that communities themselves need to engage with it. We support that and will try to enable it in as many ways as we can.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of another report published last Wednesday into a neighbouring town in the north-west entitled Burnley—The Real Story. That report, published five years after the disturbances referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is actually a story of hope. If my noble friend has had a chance to read it, she will know of the investment made in the Elevate programme, in urban regeneration, in building schools for the future, and a litany of government, local government and county initiatives working to transform the lives of many people. According to the report, crime has been reduced in Burnley, and people are mixing better. I am pleased to inform the House that there is a story of hope in one town in the north-west, and I am sure that it is shared by many others.

Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords, the report is very heartening, and I pay tribute to the role that my noble friend has played in it. One of the most impressive points is that many more people now think that Burnley is a good place to live. It also shows how creating mixed communities through housing market renewal pathfinders and the Elevate programme brings in more choice and more opportunities to break down the barriers between some of the more segregated communities. So I am pleased to have had sight of it.

Lord Ouseley: My Lords, I congratulate the towns in the north of the UK that have made enormous strides in bringing about community cohesion over the past five years and congratulate all who have been involved in the programmes, but it is important to ensure that the voices of the people mentioned in the reports are heard. Is it not therefore the case that official reports should reflect the opinions of those who are among the excluded and that the experts writing the reports should ensure that the people in the communities that we are talking about are heard as a priority when reflecting and monitoring what is happening in those areas?

Baroness Andrews: Very much so, my Lords. One of the interesting things about the Cantle report is the tribute that it pays to "heroic leadership". Let me give just one example of what has been and is going on in these communities. The PeaceMaker project, which was run by a young Bangladeshi man to bring together white and Asian young people, has been a tremendous success and is a national model. To reflect that kind of voice in the reports gives them authenticity and gives hope to us all.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, on the issue of people coming forward and exercising leadership, does the Minister agree that one of the major tasks that has to be tackled in ethnic minority communities—particularly Asian communities—is to find ways of making it possible to bring the great majority of women, who are at the moment excluded from public processes, into the community processes in this way?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I agree. It is difficult sometimes in traditional communities for women to come forward, but there are innovative programmes to encourage that—not least by working through the schools. There are a great many opportunities for young people in all the ethnic groups to mix after school, during holidays and so on. That is one way of bringing women together, but many interesting things are happening.

Lord Ahmed: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, although there has been a good deal of regeneration work in Oldham, Burnley and Bradford, there is also a great need for capacity building in the ethnic minority communities and white working-class groups? I praise the local councillors, including Councillor Mohammed Riaz, who is the deputy mayor in Oldham, and many others, for the work that they have done. They have been working very hard to bring all communities together in Oldham and the other areas that have been mentioned.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, throughout the voluntary sector we consider it important to promote capacity building. I refer my noble friend to the interfaith consultative council which, in itself, is keen on building up relationships between local city partnerships, faith communities and the voluntary sector. It is a challenge, and we are looking at innovative ways of meeting it.

NHS: Performance 2005–06

Lord Warner: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health in the other place. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the NHS chief executive's report and NHS finances for 2005–06.
	"Sir Ian Carruthers, acting chief executive of the NHS, is today publishing his first report on the performance of the NHS, including the provisional financial outturn for the last financial year. A copy has been placed in the Library, together with a more detailed report on the finances from the department's director of finance, Richard Douglas. This information also forms part of the Government's evidence to the Health Select Committee, which is conducting an inquiry into these matters.
	"First, I would like to remind the House of the context. Following decades of growth averaging around 3.1 per cent a year, the NHS has since 1997 received annual average growth in funding of 6.4 per cent. The NHS budget, which has already doubled compared with 1997, will have trebled by 2008. This unprecedented investment has enabled the NHS to employ an additional 307,000 staff, including 85,000 more nurses. I am sure the whole House will want to express our thanks to all NHS staff for their outstanding dedication and hard work.
	"With that investment has come reform, giving patients more choice for elective operations, using the independent sector to add to the capacity and innovation of the NHS, and establishing NHS foundation trusts with more freedom to respond to local people's needs.
	"Sir Ian's report shows that the NHS is continuing to improve patient care. Waiting times are continuing to fall. No one now waits over six months for an operation compared with 270,000 patients who were waiting more than six months for their operation in 2000. The majority are, of course, treated much quicker—the average wait for an operation is around seven and a half weeks. There is now a maximum 13-week wait for an outpatient appointment. Again, the average wait is much shorter—four out of five people get a first out-patient appointment within eight weeks. Nearly 99 per cent of people with cancer are treated within a maximum of 31 days of diagnosis, and more than 91 per cent are treated within 62 days of an urgent referral from their GP, compared with only 75 per cent just one year ago. Early deaths from coronary heart disease, cancer and suicide are continuing to fall. Patient care is improving everywhere. However, some parts of the country are facing significant financial problems.
	"I can today tell the House that the provisional, unaudited figures for 2005–06 show a net overspend across the NHS, excluding foundation trusts, of £512 million. This is made up of a gross deficit of £1.27 billion, offset by surpluses of £765 million.
	"Although we clearly cannot allow this situation to continue, we also need to put it into perspective. The net deficit in the NHS is less than 1 per cent of the NHS revenue budget and is concentrated in a minority of organisations. Seven out of 10 NHS organisations are not only improving patient care, employing more staff and paying them better than ever before, but they are doing so within their budget. Two out of 10 have relatively small levels of overspending. Just one in 10 NHS hospitals accounts for more than two thirds of the overspending.
	"My decision to publish these unaudited financial figures, together with the director of finance's report to me, reflects our commitment to greater transparency within the NHS. I can also tell the House that, in future, we will publish quarterly reports on NHS finances.
	"In the past, because the focus was largely on the overall financial position of the NHS, overspending organisations had little incentive to improve their performance, but relied instead on other parts of the service to bale them out. The system was unfair because most of the overspending occurred in better-off areas with a generally healthier population, and most of the underspending was in places with far greater health needs and inequalities. We are not prepared to allow that unfairness to continue.
	"By the end of this financial year, we will return the NHS as a whole to financial balance. The turn-around teams that I announced to the House in January are helping organisations with the biggest financial problems to implement recovery plans that will allow them to maintain and improve patient care within their budgets. As most of the NHS demonstrates, and Sir Ian confirms in his report, there should be no trade-off between improving patient care and sound financial management: they go together.
	"We are aiming for all organisations with deficits to reach monthly balance of income and expenditure by April 2007. There will, however, be some exceptional cases where an organisation needs longer to make the necessary changes, while still maintaining patient care. However, because overspending by one organisation has to be balanced by under-spending elsewhere, we will continue to challenge and expect organisations to return to monthly balance as quickly as possible.
	"We have already asked the new strategic health authorities to establish a regional reserve that will support organisations while they return to balance. That means asking primary care trusts that have stayed within their budget or, indeed, delivered a surplus to contribute some of their growth money in the current year and to postpone some of the improvements that they plan to make for their own patients. But that money will not be lost to those communities. It will be repaid, normally within the three-year allocations period, and I have stressed to the SHAs that the areas with the greatest health needs should be repaid first.
	"There will be difficult decisions to make, particularly in the minority of trusts with substantial deficits. In some cases, this will mean workforce reductions, and we all understand the anxiety and uncertainty that this causes for staff who have dedicated their lives to the NHS. But there will be not be wholesale redundancies across the NHS as forecast by some commentators. In most cases, workforce reductions will be achieved by natural turnover, reduced spending on expensive agency staff, redeploying staff, and freezing some posts. Compulsory redundancies will be kept to an absolute minimum and those affected will, of course, be given as much support as possible to find a new post.
	"The NHS is treating more patients and saving more people's lives than ever before. Of course, there is still more to do to meet the huge challenges of rising public expectations, people living longer and a revolution in medical care and scientific knowledge. But Sir Ian's report today shows that we are on the right track and I commend it to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Earl Howe: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement.
	The announcement reflects huge dedication and clinical success by doctors, nurses and other NHS staff, and commendable hard work by NHS managers. I am the first to join the noble Lord in paying tribute to their tremendous public service. However, the fact that the NHS should be in deficit to the tune of half a billion pounds at a time of unprecedented public resourcing is in itself astonishing.
	The Minister is, of course, right to point out—as he did—that the deficit comprises less than 1 per cent of the revenue budget. But it is still an astonishing figure. There are a number of reasons for it, but by common consent one of the main ones is that the Department of Health lost control of its budget. In layman's language, it got its sums wrong. It underestimated the cost of the GP contract, of the consultant contract, and of Agenda for Change by hundreds of millions of pounds. Those additional costs were not discretionary for trusts; they had to be funded because the Government's own waiting time and A&E targets—the very things for which the Minister has just claimed success—have required significant extra resources to ensure their delivery.
	Furthermore, not all those targets guarantee a proportionate improvement in patient care. To increase the four-hour A&E target from 96 to 98 per cent required substantial additional resources, but has given rise to practically no clinical benefit. It is estimated that some 5 per cent of A&E attendances will receive just as good care by remaining in A&E as they would elsewhere in a hospital. The overspends at a gross level were £1.27 billion. As the Minister said, those were offset by underspends. Will the Minister confirm that the underspends by strategic health authorities were achieved only by dint of cutbacks in training budgets—cuts which postgraduate deaneries are expecting to continue into 2006–07, to the tune of 4,000 fewer training posts? That is a short-term gain but it carries a long-term cost. Will the Minister say, too, to what extent the financial outturn announced today has been the result of access to the contingency reserve and to underspends on Connecting for Health? By how much have central budgets been reduced, and in what areas of expenditure?
	The comparatively low number of trusts achieving a surplus provides the best indicator of the systemic nature of the problems we are now seeing. We know that up to 2004–05 the problem has been getting worse. In 2002–03, six strategic health authority areas were in net deficit; the following year it was seven; and in 2004–05, 12 out of 28 were in net deficit.
	The issue now is how such deficits can be avoided in the future. In many areas of the country, we are seeing a top-slicing by the Department of Health of PCT budgets, and the Statement referred to that. It amounts to a clawback to the centre of much of the PCTs' growth money. Will all PCTs have that money repaid to them eventually, or only some? The Minister also referred to the Government's aim that all organisations with deficits should have a monthly balance of income and expenditure by April 2007. What exactly does that mean? Does it mean that those organisations must aim to be in balance for the year 2006–07 as a whole, or merely for the month of April 2007 and thereafter?
	The joint report of the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission on financial management in the health service, which was published today, gives rise to concerns. It highlights a disappointing reduction in the quality of accounts submitted for audit in 2004–05. In the light of that, it casts doubt on the quality of local decision-making. It speaks of systemic issues that have contributed to the deterioration in financial performance, and also of local failings. It speaks of inappropriate adjustments or omissions in more than one-fifth of the accounts submitted for audit by NHS bodies. It will be difficult enough for trusts, with growth money cut back, to meet the demands of patients and commissioners, but without sound accounting practices and robust and timely reporting, the challenge will be doubly great. Is the Minister confident that deficits of the order seen in the past year will not recur in the current year? If he is confident, why is he confident?

Baroness Barker: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement and I, too, pay tribute to the staff of the NHS, not least because the report describes in a striking way the chaos in which many of them are struggling to continue their jobs and to promote the integrity of their services. I find this an extraordinary Statement, both for what it says and for what it does not say. I say to noble Lords who wish to make some sense of it that to go to the source documents referred to by the Minister is very revealing, because they give a great deal of detail.
	In the interests of transparency, could the Minister address two questions? First, on page 10 of the financial performance report, it is stated that the deficit for primary care trusts for the year was £476 million, which is £200 million worse than the previous year, and that the deficit for the NHS trust sector was £561 million, compared with £322 million for 2004–05. As the Statement made clear all the way through, those figures do not include foundation trusts. Will the Minister tell us what the position would be if NHS foundation trusts were included, so that we could have an accurate figure with which to compare the previous year?
	Secondly, in 2004–05 the deficit in the NHS grew by £100 million between the point at which the unaudited accounts were made available and the point at which the audited accounts were made available. Does the Minister accept that there is a strong likelihood that by July 2006, when those figures will be completely audited, the position will in fact be worse? It is extremely important that we understand exactly what the position is, so that we can make judgments. The report is extremely selective when it comes to trying to make some sense of why these deficits have occurred at a time of unprecedented investment in the NHS. Dr Paul Miller of the BMA this morning was clear and in no doubt that there were a number of specific reasons, first of which were the effects of PFI. He cited among other things the two-month ministerial delay to the building project at Barts, which was responsible for £35 million, and the increased use of independent-sector treatment centres, sometimes when they are neither needed nor used.
	Much has been made throughout the report about the assistance given to the number of trusts in deficit. What is the budget within the department for the turnaround programme? What is the budget for the national programme office, which was announced in 2006 to oversee that? Will the costs of it be borne by the department or the individual trusts? That is not commercially sensitive information and I see no reason why it should not be made available to the House.
	At a time of investment in the NHS such as there has been, it is some feat for there to be both simultaneous feast and famine. We are witnessing the result of NHS targets and pay, and the cost of NHS treatment, being centrally determined. What is going on at the moment is not a planned and rational vision for the NHS based on the knowledge of front-line staff; it is short-term emergency thinking inside the centre of Government. As we can see from the report, we are being presented not with a national health service, but with an increasingly disparate one that is being forced at a remarkably rapid pace to adopt market mechanisms in which there will be winners and losers. What comfort does the Minister have for the people who live in the south-east of England and East Anglia, who will by today's report most definitely be losers?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I shall try in the time available to respond to the points made by the noble Earl and the noble Baroness. I thought that he was pretty good on synthetic outrage. He ought perhaps to remember 1996–97—

Earl Howe: My Lords, has this got anything to do with the Statement?

Lord Warner: It has a great deal to do with the Statement, my Lords. The deficit in 1996–97 was 1.5 per cent of turnover, which is about double the deficit that we announced today. It was £460 million. The idea that this is a new phenomenon is misleading to the House. That is what is relevant to the Statement.
	The noble Earl also suggested that the Department of Health had lost control of the money. We have not; we acted when it became clear that the NHS was heading for deficit, and he will recognise that the figure announced today is less than the figure at the six-month point in the year. He raised central contracts; yes, the contracts cost us more than we or the trade unions and professional associations anticipated. But staff are getting paid more for doing more, particularly GPs under performance-related pay. I am proud of the fact that we are now paying NHS staff, particularly nurses, appropriately, because we were not doing that in the past. The latest GP contract—it started in April—has a zero-inflation uplift. That is part of a process of employing only the number of staff you can afford and using them to their full ability. This has been a set of arrangements agreed with all the staff negotiators in their professions and groups.
	The noble Earl raised the issue of the contingency reserve, but the Department of Health has not gone to that reserve. We are consuming, in that hackneyed phrase, our own smoke in this area with the NHS. We are working with those challenged parts of the NHS to return them to balance. Of course, year-in year-out on such a big programme as Connecting for Health, some years there are underspends and in others there are overspends. I recall, although I do not have the details, that there was a small contribution from Connecting for Health because of a slowdown of expenditure in 2005–06.
	As I said in the Statement, we wish to ensure that everyone in the NHS is within monthly balance by the end of this financial year. Some will be in monthly balance for longer periods than others, as is inevitable, because they start from different points. Overall, as I said in the Statement, the NHS will not be in deficit.
	The noble Earl referred to the Audit Commission and the low quality of financial reports. It is true that there have been concerns about the 2004–05 reports in a minority of NHS trusts, but that is why we are now working with the NHS turnaround teams and others to improve the financial performance of the NHS.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, raised the issue of the contribution made by foundation trusts to the deficits. That is the responsibility of the independent regulator/monitor, which published its report on that issue on 5 June. I will ensure that a copy of the report is placed in the Library. It shows that there is a small deficit overall but that the overwhelming majority of foundation trusts are in surplus or balance. But I shall make that report available to the House.
	The noble Baroness also said that the accounts were unaudited. That is absolutely true; we made that clear in the Statement. When the audited accounts have been received and fully compiled they may show that the position is worsening; but they could also show that it is improving. So we will not know the position until later in the year, when those reports are available.
	I was interested to hear the noble Baroness mention Dr Miller and his views on what is wrong. He seems to have greater clarity than the Audit Commission, the National Audit Office, the director of finance, our financial advisers and some of the turnaround teams. They show that a much more mixed and complex set of arrangements in certain trusts has caused things to go wrong. There are no simple, overall explanations of why things have gone wrong in certain places. We must address the particular circumstances of those places to put them right. I do not have the budget for the turnaround teams in my brief or in my head but I shall write to the noble Baroness and copy it to other noble Lords as soon as I can lay my hands on that information.
	I am always glad to hear the noble Baroness and her colleagues bash targets. It is interesting to bash centrally driven targets. However, I should like to quote a short extract from Sir Ian Carruthers's report, which shows that these terrible targets have actually improved care for patients. He states:
	"Waiting times are shorter . . . Most people who need surgery are in hospital within nine weeks".
	He says that A&E departments have improved considerably and that,
	"lives are being saved through reductions in deaths from cancer, circulatory disease, coronary heart disease".
	Such improvements have happened partly because there has been commitment from the NHS to deliver changes that have clearly been set out in targets which the NHS has embraced and put into practice to improve patient care.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is considerable concern throughout the country about the NHS Wheelchair Service? Is he aware of the case of a young woman with severe disability who is under 20 and has to stay in bed in Ripon because the local Wheelchair Service says there will not be a suitable wheelchair for her until Christmas? Is that not a disgrace? The case was highlighted two or three weeks ago in the local paper, the Ripon Gazette, and by Yorkshire Television. I can send the press cuttings to the noble Lord, if he is interested.

Lord Warner: My Lords, although I am unaware of the case that the noble Baroness raises—I can only sympathise with it—I will certainly look into it. I should be glad to receive anything that she can send me that would help with that inquiry.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister would be kind enough to answer a question that I have always found puzzling. I am slightly apprehensive about asking it because I know how touchy he gets with anything remotely political—there is nothing at all political in this question. If the Government put in twice the amount of money that was put in in 1997—a tremendous amount of money—and if it were multiplied threefold, how is it in the end that NHS trusts make a loss? One could conclude that there was poor management somewhere. Is one wrong in that conclusion?

Lord Warner: My Lords, we have put more money in and we are getting more out. We do not have the kind of waiting lists that were around when we came to office. We do not have people on trolleys for 12 hours in accident and emergency departments. We do not have the death rates that there were or the waits for cancer treatment. That is where the money has gone, with the dedication of NHS staff, which all Members of this House have acknowledged. I would be glad to agree with the noble Earl that in some parts of the NHS—it is a minority of places that are in deficit—management could probably be improved. We know that there are variations across the NHS as there were when his party was in office. There are variations in length of stay, the extent to which people are discharged earlier and the use of agency staff. These are often matters of clinical and general management in particular places. We all need to strive to bring the performance of everybody up to the performance of the best.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend could help me on a couple of points. I have not seen the chief executive's report today but, like him, I am concerned that a number of NHS organisations are in deficit. I had been very pleased to hear that on a number of occasions Ministers have given undertakings that steps will be taken to ensure that patient care does not suffer as a result of these deficits. Will my noble friend explain what processes are in place to ensure that the current financial situation does not increase the disparity of care experienced in different parts of the country, which some people describe as the postcode lottery?
	Also, what references has the NHS chief executive made to the national patient survey and patient satisfaction levels? In the long run, we need to understand the trends in patients' views and experiences as directly measured as much as possible. Does my noble friend agree with the description from, I think, the Picker Institute, which said that UK patients in comparison with those from other countries were less agitated or demanding? It would be good to try to change that. An analysis of patient satisfaction with clear trends and writ large in annual reports from the chief executive would be very helpful.

Lord Warner: My Lords, on that last point I direct my noble friend to the report published recently—I shall send her a copy of it—by the Independent Healthcare Commission, which contained a patient survey that showed that patient satisfaction was rising in the NHS. That source is independent from the Government. I shall make sure that there is also a copy in the Library.
	My noble friend asked how we would ensure that patient care did not suffer. The independent Healthcare Commission will continue to produce its annual ratings of the performance across a number of domains of individual trusts. It continues to have a power, which it exercises, to put particular trusts on special measures if there are serious concerns about particular aspects of their clinical services. A strong SHA performance management system is in place, the national target requirements for waiting times and so on continue to be in place, and national clinical directors are in constant contact with the NHS, picking up any concerns about problems in particular areas.

Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I also thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and I pay tribute to all NHS staff, particularly those in the dental service, which, as usual, has no mention either in the Statement or in the chief executive's report. This report covers a period when we have seen the most far-reaching changes in the dental service. Of course, it is far too early to try to assess how the provision of NHS dentistry will be affected by this 2006 contract. Twelve per cent of dentists chose not to take the option of a contract, which reduces the availability of NHS dentistry by 4 per cent, but the movement of 2,500 dentists into the private workforce must mean that there will be a significant change in the dental market. It now seems that the new contract will be a temporary arrangement while PCTs design their local service and adjust to new financial arrangements.
	The public reaction to the fee increases, which have been imposed on the majority of those who pay, has yet to be seen. The move to the private sector will inevitably move fee-paying patients away from the NHS. As PCTs evolve their controller practices, the work requirement relative to the UDA value will have to be attractive to the provider. Does the Minister still maintain that the changes that will take place will return and maintain the NHS dental service to financial balance and deliver the performance plan and that it will lead to open access to the millions of patients who were previously denied treatment?

Lord Warner: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, the people who declined to participate in the new contract arrangements represented a 4 per cent reduction in NHS capacity. Unlike in the past, the PCTs have the money to replace that dental capacity and, in fact, are doing so. As the noble Lord knows very well, this Government have brought in a large number of extra dentists, particularly from places such as Poland and Spain; we have expanded dental school capacity; and we are bringing back some dentists who were not practising in the profession. So we are increasing the capability.
	The reason that dentistry does not feature in what is a six-monthly report is, on the noble Lord's own acknowledgement, that it is a bit too early to say what the full implications are of the contract changes that took place only in April.

Electoral Administration Bill

Read a third time.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 1:
	After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
	"REGISTRATION OF SERVICE VOTERS: DUTY TO TAKE NECESSARY STEPS
	In the 1983 Act omit subsections (3) and (4) of section 59 (supplemental provision as to members of forces and service voters) and insert after that section—
	"59A REGISTRATION OF SERVICE VOTERS: DUTY TO TAKE NECESSARY STEPS
	(1) Arrangements must be made by the appropriate government department for ensuring that every person having a service qualification by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) of section 14(1) above—
	(a) is registered to vote unless they make a request under subsection (2), and
	(b) has (so far as circumstances permit) an effective opportunity of exercising from time to time as occasion may require the rights conferred on him by this Act in relation to—
	(i) the making and cancellation of appointments of a proxy;
	(ii) voting in person, by post or by proxy.
	(2) A person having a service qualification by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) of section 14(1) above is entitled to decline to be registered by the appropriate government department if he has registered, or declined to be registered, with his local authority.
	(3) Arrangements must be made by the appropriate government department for securing that such person receives such instructions as to the effect of this Act and any regulations made under it, and such other assistance, as may be reasonably sufficient in connection with the exercise by that person and any spouse or civil partner of that person of any rights conferred on them as mentioned in subsection (1)(b).
	(4) In subsections (1) to (3) "the appropriate government department" means, in relation to members of the forces, the Ministry of Defence, and in relation to any other person means the government department under which he is employed in the employment giving the service qualification.
	(5) The Ministry of Defence must maintain, in relation to each member of the forces who provides information relating to his registration as an elector, a record of such information.
	(6) The Ministry of Defence must make arrangements to enable each member of the forces to update annually the information recorded under subsection (5).
	(7) In relation to persons having a service qualification by virtue of paragraph (c) of section 14(1), the British Council shall be under a corresponding obligation to that imposed by subsections (1) to (3) on the appropriate government department.""

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, ever since the introduction of this Bill—I want to stress that at its introduction last year it contained no provisions at all on service voters—members of my party, in particular, have been pressing for improvements to the current system for service voting.
	My honourable friend in the Commons, Andrew Tyrie, initially raised this matter in connection with his concerns about the registration of service voters and the difficulties that had resulted from changes to the Representation of the People Act 2000, which led to changes in service voter registration. I then took up the issue in this House, and the noble Lord, Lord Garden, from the Liberal Democrats has also been pushing at it with me since Committee.
	It is interesting to note that under the current system of service voting, only 46 per cent of servicemen and women and just 28 per cent of those overseas actually voted in the last election. As I said, at previous stages of the Bill in this House, we have been supported by the noble Lord, Lord Garden, who is an Air Marshal. He and I tabled joint amendments on Report to press the Government to amend the Bill to deal with the difficulties being experienced by service personnel, which these figures demonstrate, and difficulties with registration.
	In yesterday's Daily Telegraph, a report of a survey on service voting, conducted by the Defence Analytical Services Agency, showed that only 60 per cent of service personnel were registered to vote at the last election. Clearly, something is wrong. Out of those who responded to the survey, 61 per cent were unaware that they had to re-register every year to vote and that figure rose to 71 per cent among those posted overseas. So in total only 46 per cent of armed services voters voted in the last election. That quick summary of the profile of service voters shows that the major problem for them is registering to vote.
	On Report, the Minister promised to come back with a solution that would re-enfranchise Armed Forces personnel. I know the efforts that she has made to ensure that her amendments are on the Marshalled List today. I believe she has been very brave in the way in which she has dealt with that. I wish I could say that they go far enough and that I accept them wholeheartedly, but the Minister knows that I shall not do that. In our view, one ingredient is still missing. The amendments do not go far enough. I shall explain.
	While subsection (1) of the government amendment is welcome, as it will enable Armed Forces personnel to remain on the register for up to five years—relieving them of the task of re-registering every year, which could be logistically impossible for them—I am seriously disappointed with the Government's proposals as set out in subsection (2). Subsection (2) is a smokescreen which gives a false sense of security to those who are passionate about ensuring that servicemen and women are in the best possible position to vote, if they wish. The government amendment merely requires the Ministry of Defence to secure,
	"(so far as circumstances permit) an effective opportunity of exercising from time to time as occasion may require the rights",
	to register to vote, and,
	"voting in person, by post or by proxy".
	Not only does the amendment fail to put a duty on the Ministry of Defence to register armed services personnel to vote, but it also places a condition on fulfilling the provision of opportunity by stating that it must be done,
	"so far as circumstances permit".
	That is understandable when it relates to the casting of a vote which cannot be managed in the same way as registration. However, it is quite inadequate as regards the registering of personnel.
	There is no reason why registration should not happen when people join the Army or while they are stationed in the United Kingdom. It is worth considering that the Army's conditions of employment divide into two distinct areas: entitlements and guidelines. I believe that the Minister's amendment would fall very firmly into the guidelines section. Perhaps I can quote from the Army's website. It describes the status of guidelines as,
	"A Guideline represents something the Army will try to provide but may not always be able to guarantee".
	Registration is at the heart of this issue. The survey tells us that 73 per cent of those who received an advisory booklet, Register to vote, did not get around to reading it. It is hardly surprising that registering oneself to vote is not at the top of the priority list when one is training to go to war or living in barracks in Basra. It is not unreasonable to expect that the Ministry of Defence should be required to ensure that the basic democratic right to vote is secured for all its personnel.
	We have two amendments that go hand-in-hand to achieve registration among armed services personnel and to give them the most effective opportunity to vote. I must make it clear that Amendment No. 3 is a necessary consequential amendment to Amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 1 does exactly the same thing as subsection (2) of the government amendment, but it adds the duty on the Ministry of Defence to register servicemen and women and includes an opt-out should any individual wish to register either as a civilian or not at all. That is different from the current situation. Amendment No. 3 would leave out the unsatisfactory subsection (2) of the government amendment. Amendment No. 1 would effectively replace that subsection by inserting new Section 59A, "Registration of service voters: duty to take necessary steps", into the 1983 Act.
	The Minister will be aware that, under current electoral law, householders have a duty to provide an electoral registration officer with information of all eligible voters in their household. I see no reason why that widely accepted principle should not apply to the Ministry of Defence. It is, after all, a most unusual employer. We want to ensure that, in the same way that all members of the armed services are entitled to accommodation, for example, they are also entitled to be registered to vote.
	In a recent telephone call, the Electoral Commission expressed its support for our amendments, stating that they would achieve all its objectives as set out in its response to the Government. In its briefing, the Electoral Commission expressed the need for the government amendment to go further:
	"We would strongly recommend that these provisions are introduced as part of a wider package of measures to ensure that members of the Armed Forces are registered to vote, and to avoid the risks of fraud associated with extending the service declaration period".
	The government amendment fails to require the Ministry of Defence to take action. The proposed new subsection (3A) in government Amendment No. 2 seemed to offer a glimmer of hope:
	"Arrangements must be made by the appropriate government department for securing that such person receives such instructions as to the effect of this Act and any regulations made under it".
	While that is all right, and would be helpful, there is no room in that provision for giving the Ministry of Defence the responsibility to register its personnel. Rather, it puts the onus back onto the individuals in the forces, from where the current difficulties arose.
	My amendment does not seek to force people to register or vote. It seeks to force the Ministry of Defence, which has a duty of care towards its very special employees, to ensure that the best opportunity is available to them to vote. The only way that they can guarantee that opportunity is by actively securing the registration of servicemen and women. It is clear that registration is a keystone of improving voting among the armed services. What is more, it has received support across the board from the beginning. The Minister in another place, Harriet Harman, stated that she was baffled that the Government had not been able to get the rocket science working to register Armed Forces personnel. In this House, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who is not in his place today, spoke from great experience as former Adjutant-General when he told noble Lords that he had been concerned about the difficulties put in the way of service voters, and pleased about the progress made under the 1983 Act which gave the Ministry of Defence the duty to register servicemen and women.
	The noble Lord, Lord Garden, repeatedly emphasised the importance of registration in his speeches in Committee and on Report. I absolutely agreed with him when he said that the problem is that the Ministry of Defence will not take responsibility for sorting it out, which, he said, goes back to the Ministry having abandoned the arrangements in place before 2001.
	I understand that the Ministry of Defence is reluctant to take on responsibility for registering its members. I remind the House again, however, that it is not an ordinary employer. The military covenant, as described in the British Army pamphlet Basically Fair: Equality and Diversity in the British Army, states:
	"As a soldier you are expected to put the needs of the Service first and to forgo some of the rights enjoyed in civilian life. In return you can at all times expect to be treated fairly, and to be valued and respected as an individual".
	As I said at the beginning, the Government have moved a long way on this matter. But by not putting a duty on the Ministry of Defence to undertake the registration, they are not ensuring that registration will be total in as far as it can be. We are in terrible danger of missing a great opportunity in this Bill to make a radical improvement to this part of the lives of soldiers and other personnel. Perhaps today we can rise to the challenge of ensuring that while dedicated people train and fight in the interests of their country, their Government are doing everything they can to ensure their most basic of rights: the right to vote. I beg to move.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Hanham. Following her eloquent description of the issue at hand, I will be brief. Since the last general election, it has been clear that voter registration arrangements in the armed services leave much to be desired. The Government have come back with a suggestion that goes some way to improving the opportunity for the armed services to vote, but I agree with my noble friend that their amendment does not go far enough. We need to tackle this issue head-on by holding the MoD to account by reintroducing the duty to register servicemen and women to vote, with an opt-out clause. I commend noble Lords who have supported us in the past, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Garden, who supported my noble friend on Report. I hope those noble Lords will continue to support us to ensure that this matter is finally resolved.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments on the role I played on this, and I thank your Lordships' House for the patience with which it has allowed this issue to be dealt with. The noble Baroness is right to say that from the beginning of the Bill, my honourable and right honourable friends in another place from the Department for Constitutional Affairs have indicated that this issue has to be addressed. I join the noble Baroness in paying tribute to all those—including Andrew Tyrie, the noble Lord, Lord Garden, and many others—who have contributed to the debate and made clear their strong feeling that we need to address this subject. I would also like to pay tribute to my right honourable friend Des Browne who, on taking over as Secretary of State for Defence, was immediately extraordinarily receptive to the issues that I raised with him. On that basis, I was able to bring forward the amendments that are before your Lordships' House today, as I promised I would.
	I take seriously what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord said, and I carefully considered all the questions that the noble Baroness raised both in your Lordships' House and beyond it. I pay tribute to her for the way in which she has enabled me to have that dialogue, which has been so important. In the remarks that I am going to make, I hope to try to win her and her colleagues over, not least by putting forward the context of this amendment. As the noble Baroness rightly indicated, it is important to see this as part of a broader package. However, this package is different from the one that she suggested.
	I shall explain precisely what the amendments do, and I have already indicated that they are part of a wider package. The amendment makes the registration process more convenient for service personnel. As noble Lords will see, the amendments to Section 59 of the 1983 Act require the Ministry of Defence to keep a record of the registration arrangements of service personnel, where those personnel wish it to do so and have volunteered the relevant information. The earlier part of the amendment, which amends Section 15 of the 1983 Act, creates a power that will enable the Government to extend the duration of the electoral registration of a member of the Armed Forces resulting from a service declaration. That responds to one of the points the noble Baroness raised about the survey—I hope noble Lords have had a chance to look at it; there are copies in the Library of your Lordships' House. People were concerned about needing to re-register. That provision will come to your Lordships' House to be approved, and it is an important element. Its purpose is to make registration more convenient for those who choose to register through a service qualification. Those people could register for an extended length of time, as opposed to annually—that addresses the point that I have made—which would make it particularly convenient for those who are overseas.
	The amendment does not restrict service personnel to registering solely through a service declaration. Noble Lords who have participated or followed our debates will know that on a number of occasions we have discussed the question of being able to choose to register locally, the potential benefits that people have identified in so doing and their desire not to see us revert to being able to register purely through a service declaration. I will not go into those again; I think noble Lords are aware of them.
	The second half of the amendment places a duty on the MoD to keep a record of the electoral registration details of service personnel, to maintain and update that information provided by service personnel about their registration as electors and by what method they are registered to vote. That will then act as a prompt to the individual to update registration details with the local registration officer—most particularly updating the address to which postal votes should be redirected—and enable efforts to be focused on encouraging them to register. It will provide the kind of statistical information that will allow monitoring on a continuous basis, which I know will be very important as noble Lords seek to see that this works in fact. It will also facilitate communication between the unit registration officers and the local ERO regarding the numbers registered and assist in future registration campaigns.
	I want to put this in the context of other measures that the Ministry of Defence has decided it would like to have as part of a package of measures. These include closer co-operation between the officer in each unit with responsibility for electoral registration and the local ERO, which is an important part of ensuring that this works well, and ensuring that the MoD issues every new entrant into the Armed Forces with an electoral registration form. The MoD will run campaigns during the annual canvass for service personnel whose service declaration is set to expire. Service personnel will receive reminders in payslips about registering to vote, giving such information as website addresses that they can reach. Access will be granted to service accommodation for electoral registration officers.
	Pilot schemes for on-site polling stations are being set up at two separate military establishments—in the Rushmoor and Westminster authorities. Future campaigns will include a service "Registration Day", which will act as a focal point for the campaign when unit registration officers will proactively use all appropriate measures to remind and inform service personnel and their families of the requirement to register to vote and how to do so.
	I think that fits well with what the Electoral Commission said in its briefing dated June 2006, which I have before me. As the noble Baroness rightly said, the Electoral Commission asks, "What more can you do?" It is looking for additional measures that would not require further changes to primary legislation but which could include some of the issues I have already raised.
	The noble Baroness said that we have not gone far enough. I hope that, having put the matter in context, I have at least begun to reassure her that, as part of a package of things, this is an important measure that I am delighted to be able to bring to your Lordships' House, having accepted that noble Lords have been extremely active in ensuring that I did bring it to your Lordships' House.
	The fundamental difference between us is on whom we put the duty or responsibility for this action. The way our electoral law has worked and the way we have always seen the issue of registration is that the duty and responsibility lies with the individual. I recognise entirely what the noble Baroness says about the difference of the employer status of the Armed Forces. Noble Lords will know that there are other employers who perhaps have people overseas, but I recognise and completely accept the particular significance for the Armed Forces. We do not believe it is right to put the onus on the employer, but rather to work with the employer in these particular circumstances to help to enable the individual to accept and respond to his duty and responsibility.
	We do not think it is right to treat a government department differently from any other employer as noble Lords could well bring forward other cases involving particular circumstances. We think it is right and proper though that this particular employer should take additional action and be seen to be very positively encouraging people, who carry out for us the most significant of tasks, to register.
	Of course there will be resources implications in what the noble Baroness is suggesting. I will not go into those because that is not at the heart of the matter. I think that it is very important that we recognise what we are seeking to do.
	I know that I will probably have disappointed the noble Baroness, but I hope that noble Lords will see that in what we propose, we stick with the principle that it is for the individual to take that responsibility. We should not shirk from that, but it is absolutely right and proper—I pay tribute to all those who have helped me to get this far with the amendment—that we do all that we possibly can to ensure that they can do so. I hope that noble Lords will accept my amendment.

Lord Garden: My Lords, I support the government amendment and, for the first time during this process, I do not propose an amendment because I am familiar with all the words in the government amendment. If the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, thinks that the amendment is a smokescreen, I must admit to some of it being my smokescreen, because many of the words, thoughts and concepts there are in the amendment that I have been pushing at each previous stage of the Bill.
	I am entirely content that the amendment achieves what we were after, which is to facilitate the registration and voting process by getting the MoD to consider it but, most importantly, putting a duty on the MoD to keep an index of the annual registration process. I am convinced that that will do what the Conservative amendment is intended to do: force the MoD to go through the process every year. There will then be a co-operative MoD; that has been the difficulty. I know that there has been more difficulty with that aspect than anything else.
	The government amendment has one addition, which was not proposed by me, which is the delegated power for the Secretary of State to extend the registration period for up to five years. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on which I serve—I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, who is its chairman, is in his place—has not, because of the lateness of this amendment, had an opportunity to take a view on it. I can say only personally that, because of the narrowness of the power and its clear intent, I find it entirely appropriate.
	However, I hope that it will not be necessary to use that delegated power. If the Ministry of Defence takes up its duty with enthusiasm, we can operate with servicemen and servicewomen on the same basis as the rest of our citizens and will not need to go down the route of special arrangements that may be confusing and have some of the drawbacks that we had with permanent registration before. It is a useful power to have up the sleeve but not necessarily one that will need to be used.
	I fear that I must introduce one note of discord; I am sorry. Various noble Lords have talked about the results of the Defence Analytical Services Agency Service Voting Survey 2005, which was undertaken in autumn 2005. I have been pressing for us to see it; it would have informed our discussion because we could have drawn on it to make our amendments as good as possible. Despite the final report being available in March, the Ministry of Defence did not release it to your Lordships until Monday; it arrived to me in the post on Tuesday. In the Written Statement that accompanies it, the noble Lord, Lord Drayson, treats the survey results as though they are accurate. He says that it,
	"gives us hard facts to target future work".—[Official Report, 5/6/06; col. WS 65.]
	The letter that I received from the responsible Minister in the other place, Tom Watson, similarly suggests that the results are clear.
	In our debate so far, we have been taking those percentages as though they were carved in tablets of stone. In fact, paragraph 1.6 of the report, entitled "Limitations of the research", shows that the overall response rate to the survey was only 45 per cent. In the key area of the Army (other ranks based overseas), only 26 per cent bothered to return the survey. The report draws the following conclusion from that:
	"Personnel who did not respond may have different voting and registration experiences to those who did. It is not possible to ascertain if this is true or to quantify the size of any effect".
	In other words, if the people who fail to return survey forms tend also to be the people who fail to return electoral registration forms—which is not an unreasonable assumption—the statistics may be much worse than the already terrible figure of 28 per cent reported for those overseas who managed to vote in the 2005 election. I hope the Ministry of Defence intends to do less spinning of the statistics in the future and a little more working-out of how this legislation can improve voting opportunities for its people. In particular, it will need to address the mechanics of making overseas postal voting possible. We look forward to the update, which is promised every year, to this survey. We will have much better figures on registration because of what is in the Bill, but we will need to have better figures on how much effect we are having on voting as opposed simply to registration.
	Finally, I thank the Minister personally for all the effort that she and her staff in the Department for Constitutional Affairs have put into getting where we have got to today. We have also had great support from the Electoral Commission, from the British Forces Broadcasting Service, from parliamentarians across both Houses and all the parties, and from a number of electoral registration officers who, in the light of what the Minister said about the package, will now find their relationships with MoD establishments much easier, which is important.
	The real hero, however, has been a retired Army officer called Douglas Young, the author of a report called Silence in the Ranks. He used the power of the internet through the Army Rumour Service network to identify the scale of the problem, and he gave helpful advice to servicemen and servicewomen on that website, so we got a better response in 2005 than we would have done otherwise. He also spotted errors in the official information on MoD and local authority websites, and he mounted the campaign to right what we have all agreed is a wrong. The chain of command has not come out of this with distinction, having shown a reluctance to tackle the problem. It is perhaps scarcely surprising that this week has also seen the launch of the British Armed Forces Federation. I am sure we shall return to that when we consider the Armed Forces Bill in the coming weeks.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Garden, for what they said. I also thank the Minister for her explanation of the package, which she has described as a package that the MoD is putting together to encourage the registration of service personnel. But it is still only an encouragement; it is not a requirement or a duty. It may all work out perfectly wonderfully, and the noble Lord, Lord Garden, may be correct that everything in the legislation will do what he and I have been trying to achieve in the past few weeks, but I am afraid that I am still not convinced that that is so.
	I said in my opening remarks that there is a requirement on a householder. Noble Lords may not see the direct correlation, but a householder is required to register all the people who live in their house. It seems to me that the Ministry of Defence is very much in that position. It is the householder and knows who it has under its roof. It knows where those people are— at least, I hope it does. It is meant to know where they are, and it is meant to ensure that they have the opportunity and the rights that they should have.
	I do not think the Minister will be surprised by my seeking to divide on this; it comes from no sense of animosity, because I do think we have moved an enormously long way, but if I could secure the last bit of this, I think we would have the perfect amendment for the perfect result that we have all been looking for. I seek to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 116; Not-Contents, 203.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 2:
	After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
	"REGISTRATION IN PURSUANCE OF SERVICE DECLARATION
	(1) In section 15 of the 1983 Act (service declaration), after subsection (8) insert—
	"(9) The Secretary of State may by order provide that, in relation to the persons mentioned in section 14(1)(a) and (d), subsection (2)(a) above has effect as if for the period of 12 months there were substituted such other period (not exceeding five years) as he thinks appropriate.
	(10) The power to make an order under subsection (9) is exercisable by statutory instrument, which may contain such incidental or consequential provision as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.
	(11) No order may be made under subsection (9) unless—
	(a) the Secretary of State first consults the Electoral Commission, and
	(b) a draft of the instrument containing the order is laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
	(12) If the period substituted by an order under subsection (9) is longer than the period for the time being in force, the longer period has effect in relation to any person who immediately before the order was made was entitled to remain in a register by virtue of subsection (2)."
	(2) In section 59 of that Act (supplemental provisions as to members of forces and service voters), for subsection (3) substitute—
	"(3) Arrangements must be made by the appropriate government department for securing that every person having a service qualification by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) of section 14(1) above has (so far as circumstances permit) an effective opportunity of exercising from time to time as occasion may require the rights conferred on him by this Act in relation to—
	(a) registration in a register of electors (and in particular in relation to the making and cancellation of service declarations);
	(b) the making and cancellation of appointments of a proxy;
	(c) voting in person, by post or by proxy.
	(3A) Arrangements must be made by the appropriate government department for securing that such person receives such instructions as to the effect of this Act and any regulations made under it, and such other assistance, as may be reasonably sufficient in connection with the exercise by that person and any spouse or civil partner of that person of any rights conferred on them as mentioned above.
	(3B) In subsections (3) and (3A) "the appropriate government department" means, in relation to members of the forces, the Ministry of Defence, and in relation to any other person means the government department under which he is employed in the employment giving the service qualification.
	(3C) The Ministry of Defence must maintain, in relation to each member of the forces who provides information relating to his registration as an elector, a record of such information.
	(3D) The Ministry of Defence must make arrangements to enable each member of the forces to update annually the information recorded under subsection (3C)."
	(3) In section 59(4) of that Act, for "subsection (3)" substitute "subsections (3) and (3A)"."
	[Amendment No. 3, as an amendment to Amendment No. 2, not moved.]
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 4:
	After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
	"REGISTRATION: PERSONAL IDENTIFIERS
	(1) The 1983 Act is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 10 (maintenance of registers: annual canvass), after subsection (4) insert—
	"(4A) Subject to subsection (4B) below, the information to be obtained by the use of such a form for the purpose of a canvass shall include—
	(a) the signature of each of the persons in relation to whom the form is completed, and
	(b) the date of birth of each such person.
	(4B) The Chief Electoral Officer may dispense with the requirement mentioned in subsection (4A)(a) above in relation to any person if he is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable for that person to sign in a consistent and distinctive way because of any incapability of his or because he is unable to read."
	(3) In section 10A (maintenance of registers: registration of electors)—
	(a) after subsection (1B) insert—
	"(1C) Subject to subsection (1D) below, an application for registration in respect of an address in England, Scotland or Wales shall include—
	(a) the signature of each of the persons to whom the application relates, and
	(b) the date of birth of each such person.
	(1D) The Chief Electoral Officer may dispense with the requirement mentioned in subsection (4A)(a) above in relation to any person if he is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable for that person to sign in a consistent and distinctive way because of any incapability of his or because he is unable to read.";
	(b) in subsection (5), at the beginning insert "Subject to subsection (5A) below,";
	(c) after subsection (5) insert—
	"(5A) A person's name is to be removed from the register in respect of any address if—
	(a) the form mentioned in section 10(4) above in respect of that address does not include all the information relating to him required by section 10(4A) above; or
	(b) the registration officer determines that he is not satisfied with the information relating to that person which was included in that form pursuant to that requirement.";
	(d) in subsection (6), after "above" insert "or his name is to be removed from it by virtue of subsection (5A) above,"; and
	(e) in subsection (8), after "5" insert ", (5A)".
	(4) In section 13A (alteration of registers), after subsection (2B) insert—
	"(2C) Subject to subsection (2D) below, an application for registration under subsection (1)(a) above in respect of an address in the United Kingdom shall include—
	(a) the signature of each of the persons to whom the application relates, and
	(b) the date of birth of each such person.
	(2D) The Chief Electoral Officer may dispense with the requirement mentioned in subsection (4A)(a) above in relation to any person if he is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable for that person to sign in a consistent and distinctive way because of any incapability of his or because he is unable to read.""

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I hope that I am on much less controversial ground here, and I know that the Minister will give way on this amendment without a moment's thought.
	The amendment returns us to an issue which we have debated in great detail throughout the passage of the Bill. I was disappointed to find on Report that my amendments on personal identifiers would have been destroyed by the government clause stand part amendments, but I was glad to be able to go away to redraft the amendment in a form that is more amenable to noble Lords today.
	The amendment would require a signature and date of birth to be included in all voters' registration and not only in that of postal voters, which is already in the Bill. It would not interfere with arrangements as they stand in Northern Ireland, which I still believe to be the best option. A signature and date of birth are extremely easy to find: the one, you can simply write down; and the other, it is to be hoped you can remember.
	While I would still very much like to see national insurance numbers added as a personal identifier for voter registration, I have argued myself into the ground about it and I accept that noble Lords are not in favour of the idea. I am prepared to leave it to simmer until another opportunity arises to get it on the statute book, perhaps at a time when we find that a signature and date of birth are not quite sufficient as identifiers. However, what we want to secure at this stage is some form of personal identifiers for voting.
	Noble Lords will be aware of the Electoral Commission's campaign for personal identifiers. From the outset of the Bill, it has called for personal identifiers to be introduced, first into all-postal voting, and then, via a transitional arrangement, into the national canvass. It was pointed out in Committee that to say to people on the national non-postal canvass that they could sign if they wanted to, via the commission's proposed transitional scheme, would not yield an effective result—and I agree with that.
	So why postpone a good idea? The amendment regarding personal identifiers for postal voting which was introduced by the Government on Report was very welcome. It was the result of hard work by me and the noble Lords, Lord Elder and Lord Rennard—we all managed to agree at the same time—but we can go still further. Noble Lords will have read about the recent fraud in Coventry, where people who were in Pakistan somehow managed to vote in person at the polling station at the same time. This is just one in a long line of cases where identity has allegedly been impersonated at the polling station. The use of personal identifiers across the board would go a long way towards protecting individuals from this kind of fraud as well.
	The Minister has spoken in support of the principle of this amendment time and time again. In Committee, she stated that,
	"collecting personal identifiers has the potential to improve security and integrity in the electoral process".—[Official Report, 16/03/06; col. GC 593.]
	I was pleased to re-read that in Hansard and I am confident that my amendment strikes precisely the right balance between creating a safeguard against fraud and preventing the over-complication of registering to vote. At that stage the Minister also expressed her strong views about making sure that forms requesting information from people should be as simple and straightforward as possible.
	Provisions under Schedule 1 require voters to sign for their ballot paper at the polling station. Our amendment would therefore introduce a further check against fraud. Those registering to vote would provide a signature that would go on the register, which would then provide a check at the polling station. I do not see how the provision of a signature at the polling station will be of any use if there is no register of the original signature in the first place. What is more, our amendment would save voters the worry of finding a legitimate counterfoil to prove that their signature is theirs.
	I very much hope that noble Lords can support the amendment. In my view it would make a great contribution to the prevention of electoral fraud while retaining simplicity of information. I beg to move.

Lord Rennard: My Lords, the amendment raises issues that are very much at the heart of the fundamental purpose of the Bill—to minimise fears of electoral fraud.
	Today we hear that there are no fewer than eight petitions in the High Court alleging electoral fraud in the recent local elections. There are, of course, allegations of fraud in many other areas, and we do not know the scale of it. It is an issue of ongoing concern, which will not end with consideration of the Bill.
	The Bill contains many provisions to deal with the potential for, and perception of, fraud, and to increase confidence in the electoral process, which have been welcomed on all sides of the House. Some welcome shifts have taken place on how we might deal with the issue in future. I very much welcome the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is no longer pursuing national insurance numbers being a requirement for electoral registration. For me that was a step too far in trying to clamp down on fraud.
	I also welcome the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, with helpful encouragement from the noble Lord, Lord Elder, has accepted that the date of birth should be required on postal vote applications. However, I am still not confident that the Bill will do as much as it should to prevent, deter and help to detect fraud in arrangements for postal voting.
	The amendment requires a signature and date of birth for everyone going on to the voting register. Indeed, there can be few legal forms that entitle you to do something and involve a legal requirement that you have to complete which do not require a signature. It is suggested that it would be difficult to do this on the form. But many of us with a close interest in the electoral process who are used to people filling in forms, including the form on which you apply to vote by post, do not think that it would be so difficult to require a signature on the form.
	During the Bill's passage the Government have accepted that a signature and a date of birth should be required on a form on which you apply for a postal vote, so how can it be so difficult to suggest that someone should provide a signature and a date of birth to be included on the electoral register? Recently I looked at my own voter registration form from the London borough of Lambeth. It is a clear example of a form where any change to the people listed on it requires a signature and a date of birth. It is not a complicated form that is difficult to complete. Certainly, it is easier than filling in a national lottery ticket, which I have never succeeded in understanding or filling in myself.
	There are, of course, remedies for any problems with people failing to return the registration form because it requires a signature and a date of birth. Some of those remedies are already in the Bill and are very much welcomed. Door-to-door canvassing constitutes a large part of addressing problems of low electoral registration. A very significant reason for the decline in the quality of our electoral register over the past 20 years or so is because local authorities have cut back in that area as they felt squeezed and obliged to deal with other matters.
	There is still great disquiet in this country about the potential for electoral fraud. That has grown significantly over the past few years, since the point at which we granted an automatic entitlement to vote by post but failed to provide proper safeguards at the same time. We can do many things in the Bill to help put that right, but we could go further and do better on the issue. There remains for some noble Lords the need for independent advice on this issue that does not come from any partisan source. I suggest that the only appropriate source of advice on something such as this is the Electoral Commission, with which we may agree or disagree on occasions. I asked it again today to state its position on this issue. It told me this morning:
	"The Commission remains committed to the principle of individual registration and welcomes the intention of amendments to introduce personal identifier requirements at registration. The Commission continues to believe that a system of individual registration would allow voters to participate with confidence in the electoral process".
	So do I.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I had not intended to speak, as I thought after the very substantial debate that we had on these matters in Committee that we had formed a sort of consensus view on how to proceed. However, it seems that we have an amendment today that would establish, as I understood it on my preliminary reading, a national roll-out of individual registration in all conditions.
	I will use my words with very great care in the light of the amendments that I moved in Committee, but I will say this. There is a tradition in this country of liberty and tolerance. In recent years, practices that many of us find alien have been brought into our electoral arrangements. Those practices appear to take place in very few parts of the country. I am at a loss to understand why we should punish the whole nation for the sins of a few, when the sins of the few take place only in a very small number of areas of the United Kingdom. My amendments in Committee very sensitively dealt with that issue, by suggesting that local authorities—where they believed that a particular problem existed—should have the right to apply for the introduction of a scheme whereby individual identifiers on the basis that the noble Baroness has presented would be required.
	There was a feeling among Members of the Committee that the issue was sensitive and that we should not go down that particular route; but I still believe that we should go down that route. I do not believe that it is right that we should require a system that is onerous to be applied nationally to every citizen that votes in the United Kingdom because of what has happened in certain parts of the United Kingdom, in very small areas, when we could deal with those problems in isolation on the basis of the amendments that I proposed. It is wrong that we should go down that route. I shall say no more on this occasion other than that I hope, in the event that the amendment is carried today, that there are people at the other end who understand the concerns that I am expressing, who subscribe to the same view that we should preserve the arrangements based on tolerance that have existed over the past 150 years, and who believe that we should maintain that kind of arrangement and not simply punish everyone for the sins of a few.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I seem to be setting myself a trend by beginning each of my contributions by paying tribute to the noble Lords who have helped me in understanding these issues. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, to my noble friend Lord Elder, who is not in his place today, and to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. This significant trio have been extremely helpful in allowing me to think through what we might do. I will briefly recap how we got to where we are at now, and I will explain why I will not accept the amendment.
	We began by looking at the whole question of personal identifiers in the context of making sure that the democracy that we hold to be one of the most precious things in this country is maintained and robust, and that anything that we do to our system is tried and tested. That is a fundamental principle around anything to do with this legislation or any legislation on elections; after all, the most fundamental thing that we give our citizens is the right to vote in or out their Government, local authorities and so on. To do anything different of which we are unsure of the outcome is very difficult, and something that I could not and do not support. There is a great deal of interest in personal identifiers for good and honourable reasons that I understand completely. Of the eight petitions before the courts, four concern fraud, three of which we believe—on a cursory look, I have to say—would be well assisted by the amendments already made to this legislation, a process led by my noble friend Lord Elder and supported by others.
	We started off by saying, "We may want to look more closely at personal identifiers". In a sense, we were originally presented with two options, particularly in another place. The first was the transitional scheme put forward by the Electoral Commission initially. It was supported by many Members of your Lordships' House, but the House rejected it in the end primarily for the reason that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, alluded to. That was that, if you have a voluntary scheme, two things happen: you make the form more difficult to understand because you have to state that people may or may not provide additional information; and it carries all the risks of a self-selecting scheme, in that those who feel comfortable providing the information do so, but it tells you nothing about the people who choose not to provide it. The scheme that came to us from another place was to have pilots in various parts of the country; we talked about having 10. Again, there were real concerns about that, such as who would choose the pilots, whether they would be self-selecting, and the fact that work done on a pilot basis does not necessarily give the results that would happen across the country because of the differences in the way in which different parts of the country might operate. Many reasons were put forward with vigour by Members of your Lordships' House, both in the House and outside, and I certainly listened carefully to what was said.
	Then we had the amendment moved by my noble friend, but which I entirely accept came in a sense from this House. It is now incorporated into the part of the legislation concerning postal voters. We have sought to address significant issues in the Bill and, in a range of ways, concerns about postal fraud expressed elsewhere which were dealt with by my right honourable friend Harriet Harman when she had responsibility for this portfolio. We accepted that my noble friend's amendment helped us in two ways. First, it further and significantly dealt with that issue. Secondly and as importantly, it gave us the best possible way to test the impact of personal identifiers, because it was national—everywhere—and for anybody who wanted a postal vote; they would provide information. We could evaluate it, look at what happened and reach serious and sensible conclusions. In other words, it did not have any of the difficulties with the transitional or pilot schemes that noble Lords rejected, for good reasons one way or another.
	That is where in a sense I stop, because I am not prepared to go further at this stage. If we recognise the need to be sure about the implications of what we are doing, we must recognise the need to find out what occurs. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, understandably talks about the Northern Ireland experience. We know that the registration system in Northern Ireland faces significant reform; noble Lords who will be here for the Second Reading later will see that. The Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill scraps the annual canvass. The aim is for the canvass to take place only every 10 years, with more frequent audits if the register becomes inaccurate. Once registered, a person will remain on the register until they change address, with the inclusion of more data to keep the records up to date. It is hoped that that will improve the accuracy of the scheme in Northern Ireland.
	However, I indicated that there were significant difficulties with the number of people on the register when the scheme was introduced in Northern Ireland. Our elected representatives of all parties in another place have indicated their genuine concerns about the potential for some people to feel unable to supply that additional information for a variety of reasons, which could lead to a significant drop in the number of people on the register.
	I began by saying that our democracy is precious. That is because we want everyone who can vote to be registered to vote and to exercise their right to do so. That would represent the ultimate healthy democracy. Of course, we want to make sure that only those who are entitled to vote do so and we are looking for a way of achieving all our objectives at the same time. There is a danger in moving directly to a personal identifier scheme, given that the only experience of that demonstrated that there were significant problems, which led to the need for new legislation. It would not be responsible of me, as a government Minister or as an individual, to say that we should move directly to that without testing it.
	I made it clear on Report, when we accepted my noble friend Lord Elder's amendments, that we were keen to evaluate and to work closely on these issues with the Electoral Commission, Members of your Lordships' House, who have an important and significant role to play, and especially elected Members in another place. We want to keep our system free from fraud. I would not wish to accept the amendment and potentially have a serious effect on the number of people who register.
	For that reason, and only that reason—because I entirely understand the principle behind the amendment and I know the position of the Liberal Democrats—it would be a serious error to move directly to a situation that might seriously damage the register. That view is based on experience that demonstrated that there were significant problems. As the Bill stands, and given all the additional security measures that I have mentioned, we have the potential to evaluate properly and move further forward. So I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her passionate reply—I was going to say, "by her standards", but I do not mean that, because she is often very passionate and direct. I fully understand what she is saying. I also partially understand the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who helped a lot during the passage of the Bill.
	My concerns, which, I understand, are shared by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, relate to the fact that fraud appears to be becoming more widespread. There seem to be more opportunities for people to personate in polling stations and to get themselves on the register. Regarding the extension of what we have already agreed to, across the piece in this House, we have all come to the same conclusion on the postal vote. As the noble Baroness said, the position has moved very substantially from where the Bill started. We have chopped out four clauses, which were all pretty large, reducing the Bill by about six pages. To be fair, we touched on the wider aspects of a universal requirement for identifiers. That is why I come back to the issue today.
	I hear what the Minister says and I hear her plea not to press the amendment. I am afraid that I shall deny her that.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 167; Not-Contents, 144.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	Clause 30 [Replacement of counterfoils]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 37, line 22, leave out "(da) (inserted by section 14(3)(b))" and insert "(d)"

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments Nos. 6, 65, 66 and 67. This group of amendments picks up missed consequential changes and small drafting errors created when the postal vote identifier provisions were added to the Bill on Report. Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are missed consequential amendments. They remove a reference to the old Clause 14(3)(b) and, in the light of the deletion of that clause on Report, alter the numbering of the amendment to rule 43 of the parliamentary elections rules, inserted by Clause 30.
	Amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 67 also relate to the removal of the Bill's old personal identifier provisions. As noble Lords will recall, part of the old provisions allowed for the question "What is your date of birth?" to be asked in a polling station. This question was being extended from Northern Ireland, where it is already asked. When the old provisions were removed on Report, we inadvertently also removed the ability for presiding officers in Northern Ireland to ask this question and for voters to receive a tendered ballot. These amendments undo that error, for which I apologise, and ensure that the existing Northern Ireland system remains unaltered. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Page 37, line 24, leave out "(db)" and insert "(da)"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 48 [Political party descriptions]:

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Page 54, line 22, leave out "five" and insert "12"

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, admittedly, this is a fairly minor amendment. It relates to the descriptions that parties can use when campaigning in elections. At the moment, there are no restrictions on the number of descriptions that a party can use. Of course, there are restrictions on the wording—one cannot use indecent wording or anything like that—but in a general election, for example, a party in any constituency can describe itself as the Oxford and West Abingdon Liberal Democrats or in a local election the Southwark Liberal Democrat Focus Group.
	Clause 48 amends the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to limit the number of descriptions that can be used by a party at any time to five. Of course, that makes enormous difference in regard to descriptions. We would much prefer that the situation were left as it is, but that has apparently caused concern among registration officers. For that reason the Government have introduced this point.
	In earlier proceedings, I moved an amendment that would increase the number, very modestly, from five to 12. The figure of 12 was not chosen at random, but because it is the number that one obtains by adding up Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the nine English regions, and so that parties can describe themselves by a regional title as well as by a national one. That way, in England, we could have "the Conservatives for East Anglia", "the Labour Party for Yorkshire and Humberside" or "Liberal Democrats for London". That seemed a modest but possibly useful increase.
	I moved this amendment on Report and, since the Government said that they would go away and think about it, I withdrew it. Since then, I understand that the Government have thought about it favourably. In those circumstances, I hope that this amendment will now be acceptable to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I shall say a few brief words; it is the only time I intend to speak at Third Reading. I take this opportunity to say how grateful I was in Grand Committee for the sympathetic, sensible and constructive way the Minister dealt with the raft of amendments that I moved—which, no doubt, some people in her department thought were tedious and time-wasting, but which I thought were all important—providing answers and, in some cases, taking them on board. That is symptomatic of the way this Bill is going through. It is going to be a much better Bill than it was when it came to this House, which is a tribute to all sides and the Minister in particular.
	I also apologise for not being able to be here during Report stage. I was actively engaged in other aspects of the electoral process and thought that was more important than coming here to talk about the legislation which I was campaigning under at the time. No doubt some people are quite grateful that I did not come, because proceedings did not take as long as they otherwise might.
	I am entirely in favour of this amendment. It is sensible to increase the number of sensible party names which can be used. If I had been here on Report, I would perhaps have gone into more detail and moved some amendments which would not be appropriate at Third Reading, because an underlying issue has not been properly addressed. It is entirely sensible for people to be able to call themselves "the Yorkshire Liberal Democrats" or "the Yorkshire Conservatives"— although my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland says "Not the Yorkshire and Humberside Liberal Democrats, please". It is perfectly sensible for people to call themselves "the Scottish Liberal Democrats", "the Welsh Liberal Democrats"—or "Democratiaid Rhyddfrydol Cymru".
	What is not sensible and needs to be addressed—the Electoral Commission could do this—is political parties using their party name on the ballot paper to introduce a slogan. That is wrong and ought to be stopped. There have been a number of such instances. For example, the Liberal Democrats in London fought elections as "Liberal Democrats against the privatisation of the Tube". At the last European elections, the Conservatives did not just put "Conservative and Unionist party". I forget what their slogan was, but it was something like "Conservatives for reform and modernisation of Europe". There is a political party purporting to call itself "the Liberal party" which at the last European elections had the simple party name of "No Euro". This seems an abuse of the system. Whether used in the logo or the name, slogans should not appear on ballot papers. Legitimate party names should appear on ballot papers. While supporting my noble friend's amendment, I hope that the Electoral Commission will look at this, and find a way of banning people from abusing the ballot paper by putting political slogans on it.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his kind remarks. We think that this is a proportionate and reasonable increase in number, and we are perfectly happy to accept the amendment.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I also thank my noble friend Lord Greaves for his sensible point of some importance about slogans. I hope it will be considered by the Electoral Commission.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendments Nos. 8 and 9:
	Page 55, line 17, leave out ""five"" and insert ""12""
	Page 56, line 12, leave out "five" and insert "12"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 58 [Reporting donations to members of the House of Commons]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Page 61, line 5, leave out "member of the House of Commons" and insert "holder of a relevant elective office unless he is not a member of a registered party and is either—
	(a) a member of the Scottish Parliament, or
	(b) a member of a local authority in Scotland."

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 to 18 inclusive. Perhaps I may start by explaining the reasoning behind this group of amendments. As noble Lords will be aware, the regulatory regime established by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 followed from the recommendations made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the then Neill committee, in 1998. Schedule 7 to that Act sets out, among many other things, the requirement that holders of elective office should report the donations they have received to the Electoral Commission, which will then publish them. That has the effect that MPs, MEPs, Members of devolved Administrations and local councillors throughout the United Kingdom have to report donations to both the Electoral Commission and the relevant Register of Members' Interests of the body of which they are a Member.
	Transparency and accountability on the funding of holders of relevant offices are of crucial importance. Reporting donations that holders of elected office receive and publishing them are valuable and important activities, and we should do nothing to diminish that. However, many holders of these electoral offices take the view that such duplication is unnecessary. It can lead to confusion, and unintentional errors can sometimes be made in the reporting of donations.
	This group of amendments follows from amendments tabled in another place that applied only to MPs which received widespread support from all parts of another place. Those amendments became Clause 58 and removed the need for duplication in reporting from MPs only. When that clause was tabled, the Government gave a commitment to resolve to work with the devolved authorities on a solution to remove the requirement for all holders of elective office to report donations to the Electoral Commission. We have been successful, and I am pleased to present this group of amendments, as I promised we would.
	These amendments remove the requirement of dual reporting for MPs, MEPs, Welsh Assembly Members, Welsh and English local councillors, Members of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish local councillors who are members of a political party. They mean that holders of any relevant elected office would not have to report any donations received to the Electoral Commission, whether the donations were received in their role as a relevant elected officer or in their role as a member of a registered political party. However, the Electoral Commission will still be obliged to record any such details it receives from the relevant Registers of Members' Interests. The commission will also continue to monitor compliance with the regulatory system set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. However, it would have no role to play regarding the non-reporting of donations. The Register of Members' Interests of the body that Members belong to will retain its functions on that issue.
	The provision will commence only once the Electoral Commission is content that the relevant authorities have in place sufficient arrangements to ensure that it is still able to maintain an accurate register. This amendment seems to us to strike the right balance between, on the one hand, requiring transparency in the donations made to holders of elective office and, on the other hand, removing the bureaucratic duplication of reporting requirements.
	I should add that the amendments I present today are supported by the Electoral Commission as well as by other relevant bodies including the Scottish Executive and the Standards Board for England. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 11 to 18:
	Page 61, line 8, leave out "member of the House of Commons" and insert "holder of the relevant elective office"
	Page 61, line 13, leave out "member of the House of Commons" and insert "holder of a relevant elective office"
	Page 61, line 14, leave out "House of Commons" and insert "relevant body"
	Page 61, line 15, leave out "member" and insert "holder of the office"
	Page 61, line 21, at end insert—
	"(3) In sub-paragraph (1)(a) a relevant body is—
	(a) if the holder of a relevant elective office is a member of a body mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (f) of paragraph 1(8), that body;
	(b) if the holder of a relevant elective office is the Mayor of London, the London Assembly;
	(c) if the holder of a relevant elective office is an elected mayor within the meaning of Part 2 of the Local Government Act 2000, the local authority of which he is the mayor.""
	Page 61, line 23, leave out "members of the House of Commons" and insert "the holders of a relevant elective office"
	Page 61, line 26, leave out "members" and insert "holders of relevant elective office"
	Page 61, line 26, at end insert—
	"(5) In subsection (4) references to the holder of a relevant elective office must be construed in accordance with Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 60 [Regulation of loans etc]:

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 19:
	Page 62, line 23, at end insert—
	"(5A) An agreement or arrangement entered into before the commencement of section 60 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006 which would be a regulated transaction if entered into after that date is also a regulated transaction unless it has come to an end before that date."

Lord Goodhart: In speaking to Amendment No. 19 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 21 to 26 and Amendment No. 30. These amendments raise an issue which has already been well debated, and I will therefore try to be as brief as possible.
	The Government have rightly made loans to political parties subject to disclosure, whether or not they have been made at commercial rates. In doing so, the Bill will override the confidentiality requirements that may be contained in some or all of those loan agreements. Some of the loans have been made by people who would not have been allowed to make a donation to the party. That, of course, was legal under the 2000 Act, provided they were made on commercial terms, but it was plainly a breach of the spirit of the Act. In those circumstances we believe that the loan should not only be disclosed but that it should also be repaid.
	My original proposal was that the loan should be repaid as soon as the Bill not only became enacted but came into force. I was persuaded by the debate we had on that occasion that this was too drastic and that time should be given for repayment to avoid any immediate financial crisis for the parties concerned. On Report, therefore, I altered the amendments to allow 12 months from the date of the commencement of the Bill for repayment. That may be overriding the terms of the agreement, but no more so, I think, than by requiring disclosure which overrides a confidentiality clause.
	Further, where the loan agreement provides for repayment on demand or on fairly short notice—as I believe almost all of them will do—the lender who chooses not to recall the loan is in effect conferring a new benefit on the borrower. I believe it is wrong to allow loans in this category to remain outstanding indefinitely and that the provision in these amendments is necessary to bring to an end a practice that is an abuse of the spirit of the law and that these amendments also give fair time for repayment by political parties which have taken advantage of this loophole. I beg to move.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and I often find ourselves in harmony on many of his amendments. However, on this occasion, I find myself a dissenting voice. The amendment, as I understand it, would result in existing loans, deemed illegal after the Act, having to be repaid immediately.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. However, the loans would not be repayable immediately. They would be repayable over a period of 12 months.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful for that correction. The obligation to repay them would be immediate but the actual repayment would, indeed, be over a period of time. I am most grateful to the noble Lord and, of course, I stand corrected.
	I find myself in agreement with the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when, in Committee, he said:
	"We think that the balance is best struck by requiring disclosure but not requiring what may wreak havoc with a party's finances or cause significant prejudices to the individual lender".—[Official Report, 8/5/06; col. 758.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and I find ourselves in agreement on the amendment, which I hope will bring some satisfaction to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, rightly said that the transactions described and the loans made were made in good faith and completely legally. We believe that the transparency now required is right, but we continue to take the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in Committee. The proposal would wreak havoc with party finances. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has gone some way to ameliorate those difficulties by giving a longer timescale, but none of us knows whether any political party would be affected by that or in what way. There comes a point in retrospection where we must decide that we will go this far and no further.
	Noble Lords will be aware that political parties will look carefully at the loans that they receive. They will have the opportunity between the end of our scrutiny of the Bill and Royal Assent to think carefully about the provisions and their lenders will have the opportunity to say that they would rather have the loans repaid. That is for them. We then move to a period of greater transparency when the law takes effect. We continue to think that we have the balance right. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I remain unconvinced by the argument against my amendments but, in view of the remarks made from both the Government and the Conservative Benches, it is clear that we would not succeed if we were to force a Division. I am well aware that we are running somewhat behind time on this matter and therefore, with some regret, I ask the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 20:
	Page 63, line 18, at end insert—
	"(4) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), no account is to be taken of the effect of any provision contained in a loan agreement or an agreement for a credit facility at the time it is entered into which enables outstanding interest to be added to any sum for the time being owed in respect of the loan or credit facility, whether or not any such interest has been so added."

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, at Report I made a commitment to return to the House with provisions to resolve one particular issue concerning loans that contain capitalisation provisions. In moving Amendment No. 20, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 60. My noble and learned friend and I have previously clarified to the House—in response to a probing amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland—the status of loans that contain capitalisation provisions. We are clear that where a regulated transaction provides for capitalisation at the outset, the provisions of the Bill are such that activation of the capitalisation provision is not to be treated as a new regulated transaction.
	The difficulty that we found, about which I agreed to return to your Lordships' House, concerns the complexities that arise in determining the value of a loan that provides for capitalisation. For the purposes of reporting, there would be a difficulty where the value of a regulated transaction was just below the reporting threshold—let us say, £4,000—which might cross the reporting threshold if capitalisation provisions took effect. In those cases, the variable element would be crucial in deciding whether the transaction needed to be reported under the new regime and it would be impossible to make that decision with any certainty.
	Government Amendment No. 20 removes the need to consider capitalisation provisions which form part of an agreement at the outset when determining the value of a regulated transaction. For the reasons that I have just stated, to require political parties to consider capitalisation provisions in the valuation of regulated transactions would be unduly complex and would impose on political parties what could be described as a rather inexact science. As amended, all parties will have clarity in terms of the circumstances where the reporting threshold would be crossed.
	Where a transaction is recordable, Amendment No. 60 will make it a specific requirement to state in the transaction report whether the agreement contains a capitalisation provision. Where a recordable transaction that did not provide for capitalisation is later varied to provide for capitalisation, the change must be reported under the continuing reporting requirement in new Section 71N. The key drivers in all this are increasing openness and transparency, and the amendments provide for specific reporting of regulating transactions that contain capitalisation provisions. Once a regulated transaction has of its own right and not in respect of capitalisation provisions exceeded the reporting thresholds, these amendments require the reporting of the fact that the regulated transaction contains capitalisation provisions.
	We think these amendments strike the right balance between openness and practicability. They provide for the disclosure of regulated transactions that contain capitalisation provisions, but avoid the need for political parties to try to predict whether capitalisation provisions might or might not cause a regulated transaction to exceed the reporting threshold. I should add that we simply do not want to put anyone in the position where they could accidentally be criminalised when they could not possibly know in advance the value of the interest that might be capitalised. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will accept the amendment, and I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I seek clarification on this. I quite understand that it is impossible to predict the value of a capitalisation requirement, but will loans with a capitalisation clause have to be disclosed once the combined value of the original loan plus the capitalisation add up to more than £5,000? That would seem to be the logical conclusion but I am not sure from the wording that that would be the result. That causes me some concern because, if that is the case, there would be a serious loophole here.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the answer to the question is no, it would not. The basis of our amendment—I shall put this into my own words as I had to learn all this; capitalisation is a reasonably new concept to me—is that a loan of, say, £4,000 might have a capitalisation provision that never comes into effect. Alternatively, the provision might come into effect at some point in the lifetime of a loan that could be quite lengthy—it could be 10 years, for all we know—only when someone perhaps fails to pay the interest on time, or whatever. We think that it is unrealistic to require a local treasurer or anyone else to be completely clear about the moment at which it might stray into £5,001, if it ever did. Where it is very clear that a loan of £5,000 to a national party must be reported anyway and that it has a capitalisation provision, you should report the fact that you have that provision. If you add the provision in later, you should report the fact that you have added it in, because you are required to continue your reporting. I can see why the noble Lord thinks it would be attractive to try to work out something of that nature, but we really do not think that it is practical and we have to draw the line somewhere in what we ask people to do.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I have to say that that causes me some concern, because if someone makes a loan of £4,900 on terms that enable the donee political party simply to delay paying interest so that the interest piles up year by year, that could add up to a very substantial sum over a few years. That does seem to be a potential loophole.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I entirely understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. On the other hand, I say respectfully to the Minister that the Government have got this matter absolutely right, particularly when one considers that the obligation on a treasurer is such that he will be criminally liable if he is negligent. This government amendment was prompted by a series of amendments we tabled in Committee to achieve greater clarity in an area that was more than somewhat befogged. The Minister's amendment and the statement with it have gone a long way to appease our concerns and we are happy to support it.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for his support. All I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is that in the end we want a regime that people can operate, although I take absolutely his point about treasurers. We thought about this very carefully but decided that it had to be a practical proposition for those who have a lot to do. We think we have it about right.

On Question amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 21 to 26 not moved.]

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 27:
	Page 65, line 39, leave out "ought reasonably to have known" and insert "was reckless as to whether or not he knew"

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, having raised the question of negligent treasurers during my intervention to express my support for the Government on the previous amendment, I now seek to expunge the word "negligence" from the obligations of treasurers. In doing so, I hope that I shall not be accused of hypocrisy by the noble Baroness.
	Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 relate to Section 71L entitled:
	"Offences relating to regulated transactions".
	I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 71L(1)(b) which reads:
	"A registered party commits an offence if . . . an officer of the party knew or ought reasonably to have known of the matters mentioned in paragraph (a)".
	Our amendment would replace the words,
	"or ought reasonably to have known of the matters mentioned",
	with the words,
	"was reckless as to whether or not he knew".
	The reasons for pressing the amendment are twofold. First, as a general proposition the criminal law is extremely reluctant to incorporate, in any statute, negligence as part of the mens rea of a crime. Indeed, in a letter written to me by the noble Baroness, which I have just seen, she says herself at the beginning of the fourth paragraph:
	"We do, of course, act with great hesitancy in using negligence as a basis for criminal offence".
	The noble Baroness goes on to say:
	"However, the criminal offences set out in new section 71L operate within a regulatory framework and we consider this to be an appropriate standard in such an environment".
	I would be most grateful if the noble Baroness would explain in her response exactly what that means. In my submission, it is neither here nor there if negligence is used as part of the mens rea in a regulatory context. In whatever context negligence is used in a criminal offence, in principle, it is something that is contrary to the great constitutional principles of this country, which have informed the drafting of our criminal law throughout the ages.
	I have a second reason for proposing the amendment. People who run the finances of local constituency parties, the honorary treasurers, often do so out of a sense of public duty, are frequently not experts in financial matters, and are usually retired and spend most of their time doing things other than looking after constituency finances. Quite often there might be considerations about whether a particular financial transaction falls within or outside the regulatory framework. How on earth can a treasurer in that position know for certain what is the situation? In my view, this provision will be a serious deterrent to individuals coming forward to be honorary treasurers of their local constituency parties. I believe the Government have the balance wrong here. Voluntary work of this sort is to be encouraged; and they will be doing completely the opposite with the drafting approach they have taken in new Section 71L.
	A further matter puzzles me. Turning to the part of the Bill dealing with loans, we reach Section 71T, which is headed:
	"Declaration by a treasurer in transaction report".
	Section 71T(5) states:
	"A person commits an offence if he knowingly or recklessly makes a false declaration under this section".
	There is a clear conflict between the approach taken by the Bill for declarations by treasurers in transaction reports under new Section 71T and for what is to be recorded in quarterly reports under new Section 71M. What on earth is the logic of this? There may be a simple answer, but it is not one that occurs to me.
	For those reasons, I shall seek to press the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, Members on these Benches support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, on the same grounds as he has outlined: first, the undesirability of making negligence a criminal offence; and secondly, what in practice will be more important, the fact that this imposes an excessive burden on constituency treasurers. As the noble Lord pointed out, they are always volunteers and usually people who have a number of things to do. We have to be careful to avoid making scapegoats of them and thus making it more difficult, if not impossible, for political parties to find people willing to take on these jobs. The amendment is very sensible. I recognise that it may lead to a discrepancy between the treatment of negligence relating to loans and negligence relating to donations, but surely two wrongs do not make a right. It is then simply a matter of applying the same principle to donations.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am sorry to find myself in a different place from that of both noble Lords, although I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that I have discussed this issue with his colleague in another place, who gave me a slightly different view.
	I accept completely what the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Goodhart, have said about the need to ensure that the valuable work done by party treasurers, along with so many others in our community, is made possible. I accept too that those who act as honorary treasurers of one organisation may take on the same role in others. I certainly found myself in that position so that eventually I became the honorary treasurer of lots of different groups. I pay tribute to all those who help our democratic process by taking on these responsibilities at the local level.
	I understand the reasoning behind the noble Lord's amendment in that he is seeking to ensure what he considers to be a greater degree of protection to treasurers and that they do not, through innocent oversight, fail to recognise their responsibilities. However, we have considered this issue carefully and we believe very firmly that the regime set out in new Section 71L provides sufficient safeguards. A registered treasurer will not commit an offence unless he knew or ought reasonably to have known as a fact that the party had entered into a transaction with an unauthorised participant. Where a registered treasurer can show that he took all reasonable steps to ascertain such matters, he will not be in a position where he ought reasonably to have known of the transaction. All that is required is to do what is reasonable in the circumstances. When it comes to taking out loans, I think it is right to ask that people should act in a reasonable manner.
	The noble Lord made the point that we avoid using negligence as a basis for a criminal offence, but where criminal offences are created to support the operation of regulatory offences that is not necessarily the case. Indeed, the approach we are taking mirrors the existing basis for criminal offences set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act in respect of donations. Let me take one example. In the donations regime, where a treasurer submits a report that does not comply with the reporting requirements—for example, if he fails to report a transaction that is over the reporting threshold—an offence is committed. The treasurer has a defence if he can prove that he took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence. That clearly amounts to a negligence-based criminal offence and I am not persuaded that in the loans regime we should depart from the situation that we have in the donations regime.
	In fact, I would argue that if treasurers have two systems that are close to each other, the better off they will be in understanding their responsibilities. In addressing this question in the way that we have done, we have stuck to the spirit and letter of what we said we would do—which is to make the two regimes as compatible as possible. On that basis, I will not accept the amendment. Raising awareness of the need to take reasonable steps is a responsible and straightforward act for political parties to undertake. In doing so, political parties will encourage minimum standards of care in those responsible for their financial affairs. Again, this mirrors precisely what happens within the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act.
	There has been a heartening consensus in all that we have tried to do for greater openness, transparency and regulation, but we need to accept that there is an increased necessity for accurate and scrupulous reporting by all those involved and that we need to put in place a regime that is as straightforward to follow as possible. We believe that by mirroring what we already have in the donations regime we will fulfil that obligation. While we accept that we are placing an obligation on treasurers in terms of the necessity for compliance with the loans regime, we believe that by working with the political parties we can ensure that they will get the information so that they can comply.
	On the basis that we think the best approach is to mirror what we already have, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for responding in that way; even though what she said was wholly unacceptable to this side of the House.
	She did not address the question of the difference in standard between proposed new Sections 71L(1)(b) and 71T(5). Why is there a different standard for the treasurers? In new Section 71L we have the "negligence" standard; but in new Section 71T the only way in which a treasurer can be prosecuted is for "knowingly or recklessly" making a false declaration. Why is there a difference? It seems to me, on the face of it, to be wholly illogical.
	I await the signal from the Box.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the reason I did not answer the question that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, quite rightly put to me is that I did not understand the answer I received. If I am completely honest, I do not understand this one either.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, to say so does great credit to the noble Baroness.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I have to be honest—particularly when I am dealing with aspects of law because I know perfectly well that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is a very eminent lawyer. I would not accuse him of hypocrisy either, which is what he said.
	I am told that the Bill follows the distinctions in the PPERA for donations. In other words, it continues to mirror, I think, what happens in that Act. So although the noble Lord quite rightly says there is a recklessness standard there, it mirrors exactly what happens in PPERA. I understand that to mean that when you look at the loans regime and the donations regime together, you will see that the criminal offences mirror each other. That is a very significant issue because it is the basis upon which I believe—having thought very hard about this—treasurers will find it easier to adapt to this regime because it will mirror what they have had before.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I think the House is entitled to conclude that if the noble Baroness cannot give your Lordships a reason for the distinction, then the distinction is a mindless distinction. In those circumstances, I find that the Minister's response adds fuel to my determination to seek the opinion of your Lordships' House. I beg to move.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 27) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 115; Not-Contents, 126.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 29:
	Page 67, line 24, at end insert—
	"(14) This section does not apply to a transaction which is entered into before the commencement of section 60 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006."

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, this group of amendments makes minor, technical amendments to new Part 4A of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 introduced by Clause 60, relating to the reporting of regulated transactions where that transaction is with an unauthorised participant.
	Amendment No. 29 inserts subsection (14) into Section 71L of new Part 4A. Section 71L deals with offences relating to regulated transactions entered into with an unauthorised participant. This amendment puts beyond doubt that transactions entered into before the commencement of the Bill will not be subject to the conditions of Section 71L.
	Amendment No. 53 confirms that a transaction report must also record any regulated transaction which is entered into by the party and a person who is not an authorised participant and is dealt with during the reporting period in accordance with the requirements of Section 71I or Section 71J. The amendment simply spells out more clearly when the transaction report must be submitted.
	Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 add further detail to the information that must be provided in a quarterly or weekly report about an unauthorised participant. As well as the name and address of the unauthorised participant, the date when, and the manner in which, the transaction was dealt with must be given. The reference to the transaction being dealt with is a reference to the fact that such transactions are void, and any moneys received under them must be repaid to the person from whom they were received. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 30A, which had been incorrectly numbered as Amendment No. 49, not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 31:
	Page 68, line 3, at end insert—
	""relevant benefit", in relation to any person and any year, means—
	(a) a relevant donation within the meaning of section 62(3) accepted by the party from that person as a donor, or
	(b) a relevant transaction entered into by the party and that person as a participant,
	and a relevant benefit accrues when it is accepted (if it is a donation) or entered into (if it is a transaction)."

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I would have liked to move the amendment formally, but as it is in rather a large group, I should speak to it. In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 32 to 48, 50, 51, 52, 54, 59, 72 and 75.
	The amendments return us to an issue to which we gave consideration both on Recommitment and on Report—the gap that existed in respect of disclosure of aggregated loans and donations. The Government are tabling the amendments because there was previously no provision in the Bill to aggregate loans and donations, such that it would have been possible to make a donation of £5,000 and a loan of £5,000 without a requirement for either to be disclosed.
	As I said on Report, it would be quite wrong for there to be such a gap. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his original amendment, which usefully highlighted this issue. I undertook to return to your Lordships' House with detailed amendments to tackle this important issue.
	These amendments close that gap. Under them, a requirement to report and to disclose is triggered where donations, regulated transactions, or any combination of donations and regulated transactions from the same permissible donor or authorised participant exceed the reporting threshold.
	The amendments adopt the term "relevant benefits" as a composite phrase to refer to something that is either a donation or a regulated transaction. The approach that we have taken is that it should not matter whether or not a donation, or a regulated transaction, or a combination of donations and regulated transactions are made. If the aggregate value of any combination of relevant benefits exceeds the initial reporting threshold of £5,000, or the subsequent reporting threshold of £1,000, a requirement to report is triggered.
	The reporting requirements have been kept as simple as possible. We have steered away from creating a complicated new structure and register for the separate reporting of hybrid aggregates. Rather, we have adopted the more straightforward way whereby donations feed into the existing reporting structure for donations and regulated transactions feed into the existing reporting structure for regulated transactions. So, a party must submit a donation report every quarter, which must list all recordable donations. Under the approach adopted by these amendments, it will not matter whether a donation is required to be reported because, first, it exceeds the reporting threshold in its own right, or, secondly, it is required to be reported because, taken with regulated transactions, it exceeds the reporting threshold. In either case, the donation must be entered in the donation report. In the second case, the regulated transaction must also be reported in the transaction report for that quarter.
	To ensure clarity, where a requirement to report is triggered because of an aggregation of donations and loans, this fact must be reported in the respective donation and transaction reports. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am glad that the Government have taken on board this point, which I raised originally. I had a slight bad conscience over it because it has added two or three more pages to what is rapidly becoming a bulky Act of Parliament.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 32 to 48:
	Page 68, line 4, leave out "transaction or transactions" and insert "benefit or benefits"
	Page 68, line 5, after "subsection" insert "or section 62(4)"
	Page 68, line 8, leave out "transaction or transaction" and insert "benefit or benefits"
	Page 68, line 14, leave out "as part of" and insert "together with any other relevant transaction or transactions included in"
	Page 68, line 17, leave out "transaction" and insert "benefit"
	Page 68, line 18, leave out "is entered into" and insert "accrues"
	Page 68, line 19, leave out "transaction or transactions" and insert "benefit or benefits"
	Page 68, line 20, after "subsection (4)" insert "or section 62(4)"
	Page 68, line 21, leave out from "when" to end of line 23 and insert "a relevant transaction falling within subsection (6A) has been entered into"
	Page 68, line 24, leave out "transaction or transactions" and insert "benefit or benefits"
	Page 68, line 25, leave out "subsection (4)" and insert "that provision"
	Page 68, line 26, leave out "transaction or transactions" and insert "benefit or benefits"
	Page 68, line 27, at end insert "or section 62(6)"
	Page 68, line 28, leave out "transaction or transactions" and insert "benefit or benefits"
	Page 68, line 29, at end insert—
	"(6A) A relevant transaction falls within this subsection—
	(a) if the value of the transaction is more than £1,000, or
	(b) if, when it is added to any other relevant benefit or benefits accruing since the time mentioned in subsection (6)(a) or (b), the aggregate amount of the benefits is more than £1,000."
	Page 68, line 31, leave out "transaction" and insert "benefit"
	Page 68, line 34, leave out "as part of" and insert "together with any other relevant transaction or transactions included in" .
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 49 had been incorrectly numbered.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 50 to 54:
	Page 68, line 35, leave out "that subsection" and insert "subsection (6A)"
	Page 68, line 36, leave out "transaction" and insert "benefit which"
	Page 68, line 37, leave out "is entered into" and insert "accrues"
	Page 68, line 40, after "with" insert "during the reporting period"
	Page 70, line 16, at end insert—
	"( ) references in section 71M to a relevant benefit did not include references to a relevant donation."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 55:
	Page 75, line 3, at end insert—
	"(c) in Northern Ireland, the county court."

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 55, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 63 and 64. These amendments fulfil a commitment made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on Recommitment of the Bill on 8 May when he introduced the main tranche of amendments regulating loans to political parties. He said then:
	"It will also be necessary to consider the most appropriate means by which to extend the provisions to Northern Ireland. Amendments will be brought forward for that purpose".—[Official Report, 8/5/06; col. 753.]
	These are those amendments.
	The regime for loans and other regulated transactions is modelled closely on that for donations which already exists in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, departing from it only where necessary to take account of the different nature of donations and loans. In considering how to apply the new provisions to Northern Ireland we naturally looked at how donations are dealt with there, both currently and in future plans.
	As noble Lords will be aware, the donations regime has been disapplied in Northern Ireland since 2000 by orders made under the 2000 Act. However, the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill currently before this House contains provisions which mean that the disapplication of the regime will expire on 31 October 2007. After this point, the permissibility and reporting requirements of the donations regime will apply in Northern Ireland.
	However, modifications will be made to that regime. In relation to the reporting requirements, for a transitional period due to end on 31 October 2010—but subject to extension by order—details of donations reported to the Electoral Commission will be held confidentially. A permanent change will also be made to the permissibility requirements. Irish citizens and bodies who can donate to Irish parties will be permitted to donate to political parties in Northern Ireland.
	The amendments before us today extend the loans regime to Northern Ireland, but confer an order-making power on the Secretary of State. The order-making power will allow the loans regime to be modified as it applies in Northern Ireland, in a way that allows it to mirror the approach to be adopted in relation to donations as provided for in the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
	As noble Lords will recognise from the loans provisions already in the Electoral Administration Bill, the detail is great and complex. In the case of Northern Ireland further detailed and technical consideration is necessary before the provisions can be finalised. The scope of the order-making power is restricted in that it only allows the Secretary of State to make provisions which correspond to, or are similar to, those in the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and it will, of course, be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Further details have been provided in a memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
	These are appropriate and necessary amendments to further complete the set of provisions to regulate the giving of loans to political parties. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 56:
	Page 75, line 42, at end insert—
	"(dc) section 71U(1),"

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, this is a small amendment to bring the order-making power which concerns the weekly reporting requirements for loans in line with that for donations. I am most grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for pointing out an omission with regard to this power.
	New Section 71U enables the Secretary of State, after consulting the Electoral Commission and registered parties, to extend the weekly—as opposed to the normal quarterly—reporting requirements to specified election periods for certain types of election other than a general election. This replicates the existing power in Section 67, which applies to donations.
	Section 67 requires an order made under it to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, and this amendment will ensure that an order extending the weekly reporting requirement for the reporting of loans will also be subject to the affirmative procedure. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 57 to 60:
	Page 77, line 35, after "give" insert "—
	(a) "
	Page 77, line 35, at end insert—
	"(b) the date when, and the manner in which, the transaction was dealt with in accordance with subsections (3) to (5) of section 71I or those subsections as applied by section 71I(6) or 71J(2)."
	Page 78, line 4, at end insert—
	"( ) If the requirement to record the transaction arises only because the value of the transaction has, for the purposes of section 71M(4) or (6), been aggregated with the value of any relevant donation or donations (within the meaning of section 62), a quarterly report must contain a statement to that effect."
	Page 78, line 24, at end insert—
	"( ) The report must state whether the agreement contains a provision which enables outstanding interest to be added to any sum for the time being owed in respect of the loan or credit facility."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 61:
	Page 80, line 42, at end insert—
	"( ) Part 5A of Schedule 1 amends the 2000 Act for the purpose of controlling loans and certain other transactions involving individuals and members associations."

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 61, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 68, 76, 77, 78, 80 and 81.
	My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said on re-commitment of the Bill on 8 May, that while the amendments which now form Clause 60 were comprehensive in all respects as they relate to political parties, it would be necessary to bring forward further amendments,
	"to close any gaps by extending the provisions in much the same manner to individual members of political parties, holders of elective office and members associations".—[Official Report, 8/5/06; col. 753.]
	These important amendments therefore further extend the principles of the loans regime—which this House has already endorsed—to apply to individual members of political parties, holders of relevant elective office and members associations.
	The approach taken in the amendments in respect of loans to individuals and members associations mirrors the approach taken for individuals and members associations in the existing donations regime of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. As is the case for donations, we have drawn a capacity-based distinction in respect of the transactions entered into by individuals and members associations.
	The activities of political parties are inherently political, but the activities of individuals are not. Under the donations regime, any donation afforded to a political party can be subjected to a regulatory regime concerned with,
	"donations and expenditure for political purposes".
	PPERA recognises that this is not, of course, appropriate in the case of individuals. Accordingly, a donation must be a "controlled donation" before it falls within the ambit of Schedule 7, dependent on the donation being received by the individual or members association in circumstances where it has been offered or retained for use in connection with any relevant political activities.
	The amendments take a similar approach. Regulated transactions entered into by individual members of political parties and members associations will only be captured by this regime if the individual or members association intends at the time they enter into the transaction to use any money or benefit obtained in connection with relevant political activities.
	We also in these amendments remove from individuals and members associations the requirement to report loans on less than commercial terms under the donations regime. As noble Lords will be aware, the loans regime for political parties removes such loans from the definition of "donation", because they will now fall within the definition of a "regulated transaction". This change avoids a duplicate reporting requirement. A similar approach is taken for loans to individuals and members associations. We also extend the principles of aggregation of loans and donations to individuals and members associations. We have taken exactly the same approach as that taken for political parties, whereby donations and regulated transactions from the same regulated participant that are below the reporting threshold fall to be disclosed when, in aggregation, such relevant benefits exceed the reporting threshold. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I shall briefly intervene here. I wanted to find a peg this evening on which to hang an issue that arises under Amendment No. 68. The House will recognise that we are at the beginning of a discussion on the loans regime, which has not been before the House of Commons. When it considers the Bill that we will send to it, it will be considering for the first time the whole question of loans. I was in correspondence with the chairman of the Electoral Commission, Sam Younger, until 12 May when I received a letter from him, part of which I want to draw to the attention of the House.
	I had been asking questions about the case of Fifth Avenue Partners Limited, not for any particular political reason but because I wanted to try to understand the extent to which it had implications for the loans regime, although it related to a donation. I will not quote the section of Sam Younger's letter which deals with Fifth Avenue Partners Limited, but I will quote the section that is relevant to this Bill:
	"The measures being proposed in the Electoral Administration Bill concerning loans are based on the rules for donations. Hence, in order for a loan from a company to be permissible it has to pass the same three tests as for a donation".
	We all know that the three tests a company must pass—as must a loan—are that the company is registered in the United Kingdom, that the company is incorporated in the United Kingdom or another member state, and that the company carries on business in the United Kingdom.
	"As a result, the position that exists currently in relation to Fifth Avenue Partners"—
	which is a donation discussion—
	"could recur in the case of a loan—or indeed an otherwise 'straightforward' donation—to a party from a company.
	In the light of the issue surrounding Fifth Avenue Partners, we are preparing guidance for political parties on the questions we think should be asked in relation to the 'carrying on business' test. Of course in the vast majority of cases a copy of the latest audited set of accounts filed at Companies House would be enough. However, we are considering what guidelines could be set down to cover, for example, newly established companies. On a practical level, we are inclined to suggest that, before accepting a donation, a party ought to see the company's latest set of audited accounts and/or a signed statement by (for example) the company secretary confirming that the companying is carrying on business.
	Under the current legislation, it is for the party receiving a donation to satisfy itself that the donation is permissible. The provision of detailed guidance on what constitutes carrying on business should help parties,"—
	that is, guidance that the Electoral Commission will be issuing—
	"although any definitive statement of what constitutes carrying on business could only be given by a court of law. One way of giving parties more certainty about whether they are right to accept donations (or loans) would be to change the rules to specify that the Commission must receive and approve specified documentary evidence in relation to the donation (or loan) before it is accepted. This, however, would require a change in the law".
	In many ways, that is a different approach from that which is being adopted by the Government. I recognise that we could not have a system where the Electoral Commission was required to clear and approve at an early stage every possible loan given to a political party. However, it seems to me that one could set a fairly high threshold and ensure that every loan was approved by the Electoral Commission. We are not talking about large numbers of loans; we are talking about a very small group of substantial transactions, which in my view the Electoral Commission should be given the right to approve prior to that money being allocated to a political party. The result would be that many of the clauses in the Bill that we are discussing might not be necessary. Many of the problems alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, about whether it is fair to penalise people who might have acted honourably, would not even arise. In those conditions, approval having been given by the Electoral Commission, the responsibility would have passed to it.
	When I discussed this with Sam Younger, he said that he did not have the resources. However, I wonder what resources would be required to police all this in the event that it might go wrong. One has not estimated what might happen in the event that the structure that we are establishing has to be used. What will the cost of that be in terms of carrying out administrative and judicial requirements? All I am saying is that there is another approach to this which is much simpler, and I suggest to the Government that they might want to consider it, even at this late stage. As this Bill moves to the Commons—because we are giving the Bill its first consideration—Members in the other place might want to consider a much simpler approach.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is very difficult at Third Reading to pick up something that is clearly significant, given the way in which my noble friend has raised it. I will read what he said with great care, and as my noble friend knows I will discuss this with him to clarify in my own mind exactly what the issues might be. If it is appropriate, I will have discussions with the other political parties.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 62:
	After Clause 60, insert the following new clause—
	"REGULATION OF LOANS: POWER TO MAKE PROVISION FOR CANDIDATES, THIRD PARTIES AND REFERENDUMS
	(1) The Secretary of State may by order make in relation to a relevant matter such provision as he thinks appropriate which corresponds to or is similar to any provision of Part 4A of or Schedule 7A to the 2000 Act (the relevant transaction provisions).
	(2) A relevant matter is a loan, credit facility or any form of security (whether real or personal) which benefits—
	(a) a candidate at an election;
	(b) a recognised third party;
	(c) a permitted participant in a referendum.
	(3) An order under this section may—
	(a) amend or repeal any enactment (whenever passed);
	(b) create an offence corresponding or similar to any offence created by the relevant transaction provisions;
	(c) confer power on the Secretary of State to make provision by order corresponding to any such power in the relevant transaction provisions;
	(d) make different provision for different purposes;
	(e) make such supplemental, incidental, consequential, transitional or savings provision as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient in connection with the order.
	(4) An order under this section which confers power to make an order by virtue of subsection (3)(c) must require the order—
	(a) to be made by statutory instrument;
	(b) not to be made unless a draft of the instrument containing the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to any power to make provision determining a rate of interest.
	(6) The power to make an order under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument.
	(7) No such order may be made unless a draft of the instrument containing the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(8) In this section—
	"candidate" has the same meaning as in Part 2 of the 1983 Act;
	"credit facility" must be construed in accordance with section 71F(11) of the 2000 Act;
	"election" has the same meaning as in section 202 of the 1983 Act;
	"permitted participant" has the same meaning as in Part 7 of the 2000 Act;
	"recognised third party" has the same meaning as in Part 6 of that Act.
	(9) An order under this section must not make provision which is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
	(10) Subsection (9) does not apply to provision made by virtue of subsection (3)(e)."

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, this amendment provides an enabling power for the Secretary of State to roll out the new provisions in relation to regulated transactions in three further, very specific contexts where there are already existing parallel controls for donations. Those are recognised third parties at national election campaigns; permitted participants at national and regional referendums; and candidates in election campaigns.
	The intention is to use the order-making power to replicate as far as possible the regulated transactions regime, which is already in the Bill for political parties and extended to individuals, in each of these three cases making appropriate adjustments to reflect the different contexts. Anything that a political party does is inherently political, and as a consequence it is appropriate to regulate a party's donations and loans at all times. However, recognised third parties, candidates and permitted participants are only regulated when acting in a political capacity. For example, donations to third parties and candidates are only regulated when they are for the purpose of meeting political expenditure related to the election in question. The regulated transactions regime will need to draw a similar distinction.
	Another difference arises from the existing position of candidates. The reporting threshold for donations to third parties and permitted participants is currently £5,000, but for candidates it is only £50. There is no provision for the aggregation of donations with other donations of less than £50. Accordingly, we do not think that it would be appropriate or sensible to provide for the aggregation of loans and donations where such small sums are involved. Those are matters of detail. The power is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, and I look forward to bringing these issues forward to your Lordships' House for discussion. I hope that noble Lords will accept the amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 63:
	After Clause 60, insert the following new clause—
	"REGULATION OF LOANS ETC: NORTHERN IRELAND
	(1) The Secretary of State may, after consulting the Electoral Commission, by order make provision relating to regulated transactions, controlled transactions or relevant matters which corresponds to or is similar to any provision ("relevant provision") relating to donations for political purposes which is made by, or which may be made under, the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006 ("the 2006 Act").
	(2) But if a relevant provision has effect, or would have effect, subject to a temporal limitation, a provision of an order under this section which corresponds to or is similar to the relevant provision must be subject to the same temporal limitation.
	(3) An order under this section may in particular—
	(a) amend, repeal or revoke any provision made by or under an Act of Parliament or Northern Ireland legislation (whenever passed or made);
	(b) create an offence corresponding or similar to any offence relating to donations for political purposes created by the 2006 Act;
	(c) confer power on the Secretary of State to make provision by order corresponding or similar to any such power relating to donations for political purposes conferred by the 2006 Act;
	(d) make different provision for different purposes;
	(e) make such supplemental, incidental, consequential, transitional or savings provision as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient in connection with the order.
	(4) An order under this section which confers power to make an order by virtue of subsection (3)(c) must require the order—
	(a) to be made only after consulting the Electoral Commission;
	(b) to be made by statutory instrument; and
	(c) not to be made unless a draft of the instrument containing the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(5) The power to make an order under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument.
	(6) No such order may be made unless a draft of the instrument containing the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(7) In this section—
	"regulated transaction" has the same meaning as in Part 4A of the 2000 Act (see section 71F of that Act);
	"controlled transaction" has the same meaning as in Schedule 7A to that Act (see paragraphs 1 and 2 of that Schedule);
	"relevant matter" has the same meaning as in section (Regulation of loans: power to make provision for candidates, third parties and referendums) of this Act (see subsection (2) of that section)."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 75 [Extent]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 64:
	Page 89, line 33, leave out paragraph (b).
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 1 [Amendments]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 65 to 68:
	Page 107, line 29, column 2, at end insert- "(c) At an election held in Northern Ireland, "What is your date of birth?""
	Page 110, line 18, leave out first "In"
	Page 110, line 18, after "papers)" insert "is amended as follows.
	(2) After paragraph (1ZE) (inserted by section 37(2)) insert—
	"(1ZF) A person to whom a ballot paper is not delivered under paragraph (3) of rule 35 following his unsatisfactory answer to the question at entry 1(c) in the table in paragraph (1) of that rule shall, if he satisfactorily answers any other questions permitted by law to be asked at the poll, nevertheless be entitled, subject to the following provisions of this rule, to mark a ballot paper (in these rules referred to as "a tendered ballot paper") in the same manner as any other voter."
	(3) "
	Page 113, line 21, at end insert—
	"PART 5A CONTROL OF LOANS ETC TO INDIVIDUALS AND MEMBERS ASSOCIATIONS
	96A The 2000 Act is amended in accordance with paragraphs 96B to 96E.
	96B After section 71X (inserted by section 60 of this Act) insert—
	"71Y CONTROL OF LOANS ETC: INDIVIDUALS AND MEMBERS ASSOCIATIONS
	Schedule 7A, which makes provisions for controlling loans and certain other transactions to individual members of registered parties, associations of such members, and certain elected office holders, shall have effect."
	96C After Schedule 7 insert—
	"SCHEDULE 7A CONTROL OF LOANS ETC TO INDIVIDUALS AND MEMBERS ASSOCIATIONS
	Operation and construction of Schedule
	1 (1) This Schedule has effect for controlling loans and certain other transactions where one of the parties to the transaction is—
	(a) a member of a registered party,
	(b) a members association, or
	(c) the holder of a relevant elective office.
	(2) The following provisions have effect for the purposes of this Schedule.
	(3) References to a controlled transaction must be construed in accordance with paragraph 2.
	(4) A reference to a connected transaction is a reference to a controlled transaction falling within paragraph 2(3)(b).
	(5) A regulated participant is—
	(a) a member of a registered party;
	(b) a members association;
	(c) the holder of a relevant elective office, whether or not he is a member of a registered party.
	(6) A credit facility is an agreement whereby a regulated participant is enabled to receive from time to time from another party to the agreement a loan of money not exceeding such amount (taking account of any repayments made by the regulated participant) as is specified in or determined in accordance with the agreement.
	(7) References to each of the following must be construed in accordance with Schedule 7—
	(a) the political activities of a party member or a members association;
	(b) members association;
	(c) relevant elective office;
	(d) the responsible person (in relation to a members association), as if for the reference in paragraph 1(9)(b) of that Schedule to donations there were a reference to receipts from controlled transactions.
	(8) This Schedule does not have effect in relation to—
	(a) a member of the Scottish Parliament, or
	(b) a member of a local authority in Scotland,
	if he is not also a member of a registered party.
	Controlled transaction
	2 (1) An agreement between a regulated participant and another person by which the other person makes a loan of money to the regulated participant is a controlled transaction if the use condition is satisfied.
	(2) An agreement between a regulated participant and another person by which the other person provides a credit facility to the regulated participant is a controlled transaction if the use condition is satisfied.
	(3) Where—
	(a) a regulated participant and another person (A) enter into a controlled transaction of a description mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) or (2) or a transaction under which any property, services or facilities are provided for the use or benefit of the regulated participant (including the services of any person),
	(b) A also enters into an arrangement where a third person (B) gives any form of security (whether real or personal) for a sum owed to A by the regulated participant under the transaction mentioned in paragraph (a), and
	(c) the use condition is satisfied,
	the arrangement is a controlled transaction.
	(4) An agreement or arrangement is not a controlled transaction—
	(a) to the extent that in accordance with any enactment a payment made in pursuance of the agreement or arrangement falls to be included in a return as to election expenses in respect of a candidate or candidates at a particular election, or
	(b) if its value is not more than £200.
	(5) Anything given or transferred to an officer, member, trustee or agent of a members association in his capacity as such (and not for his own use or benefit) is to be regarded as given or transferred to the association (and references to money or any other benefit received by a regulated participant accordingly include, in the case of a members association, money or any other benefit so given or transferred).
	(6) The use condition is that the regulated participant intends at the time he enters into a transaction mentioned in sub-paragraph (1), (2) or (3)(a) to use any money or benefit obtained in consequence of the transaction in connection with relevant political activities.
	(7) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (6), it is immaterial that only part of the money or benefit is intended to be used in connection with relevant political activities.
	(8) Relevant political activities are—
	(a) if the regulated participant is a member of a regulated participant, any of his political activities as a member of the party;
	(b) if the regulated participant is a members association, any of its political activities;
	(c) if the regulated participant is a holder of a relevant elective office, any of his political activities.
	(9) The Secretary of State may, by order, specify circumstances or any description of circumstances in which an agreement or arrangement falling within any of sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) is not a controlled transaction.
	Valuation of controlled transactions
	3 (1) The value of a controlled transaction which is a loan is the value of the total amount to be lent under the loan agreement.
	(2) The value of a controlled transaction which is a credit facility is the maximum amount which may be borrowed under the agreement for the facility.
	(3) The value of a controlled transaction which is an arrangement by which any form of security is given is the contingent liability under the security provided.
	(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), no account is to be taken of the effect of any provision contained in a loan agreement or an agreement for a credit facility at the time it is entered into which enables outstanding interest to be added to any sum for the time being owed in respect of the loan or credit facility, whether or not any such interest has been so added.
	Authorised participants
	4 (1) A regulated participant must not—
	(a) be a party to a controlled transaction to which any of the other parties is not an authorised participant;
	(b) derive a benefit in consequence of a connected transaction if any of the parties to that transaction is not an authorised participant.
	(2) This paragraph does not apply to a controlled transaction if it was entered into before the commencement of section 60 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006.
	(3) In this Schedule, an authorised participant is a person who is a permissible donor within the meaning of section 54(2).
	(4) The Secretary of State may, by order, specify circumstances or any description of circumstances in which a person who is not a permissible donor is to be treated as an authorised participant.
	Controlled transaction involving unauthorised participant
	5 (1) This paragraph applies if a regulated participant is a party to a controlled transaction in which another participant is not an authorised participant.
	(2) The transaction is void.
	(3) Despite subsection (2)—
	(a) any money received by the regulated participant by virtue of the transaction must be repaid by the regulated participant to the person from whom it was received, along with interest at such rate as is determined in accordance with an order made by the Secretary of State;
	(b) that person is entitled to recover the money, along with such interest.
	(4) If—
	(a) the money is not (for whatever reason) repaid as mentioned in subsection (3)(a), or
	(b) the person entitled to recover the money refuses or fails to do so,
	the Commission may apply to the court to make such order as it thinks fit to restore (so far as is possible) the parties to the transaction to the position they would have been in if the transaction had not been entered into.
	(5) In the case of a controlled transaction where a party other than a regulated participant—
	(a) at the time the regulated participant enters into the transaction, is an authorised participant, but
	(b) subsequently, for whatever reason, ceases to be an authorised participant,
	the transaction is void and subsections (3) to (4) apply with effect from the time when the other party ceased to be an authorised participant.
	(6) This paragraph does not apply to a controlled transaction if it was entered into before the commencement of section 60 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006.
	Guarantees and securities: unauthorised participants
	6 (1) This section applies if—
	(a) a regulated participant and another person (A) enter into a transaction of a description mentioned in paragraph 2(3)(a),
	(b) A is party to a controlled transaction of a description mentioned in section 2(3)(b) ("the connected transaction") with another person (B), and
	(c) B is not an authorised participant.
	(2) Paragraph 5(2) to (4) applies to the transaction mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a).
	(3) The connected transaction is void.
	(4) Sub-paragraph (5) applies if (but only if) A is unable to recover from the regulated participant the whole of the money mentioned in section 2(3)(a) (as applied by sub-paragraph (2) above), along with such interest as is there mentioned.
	(5) Despite sub-paragraph (3), A is entitled to recover from B any part of that money (and such interest) that is not recovered from the regulated participant.
	(6) Sub-paragraph (5) does not entitle A to recover more than the contingent liability under the security provided by virtue of the connected transaction.
	(7) In the case of a connected transaction where B—
	(a) at the time A enters into the transaction, is an authorised participant, but
	(b) subsequently, for whatever reason, ceases to be an authorised participant,
	sub-paragraphs (2) to (6) apply with effect from the time when B ceased to be an authorised participant.
	(8) This paragraph does not apply to a regulated transaction if it was entered into before the commencement of section 60 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006.
	(9) If the transaction mentioned in section 71F(4)(a) is not a regulated transaction of a description mentioned in section 71F(2) or (3), references in this section and section 71I(2) to (5) (as applied by subsection (2) above) to the repayment or recovery of money must be construed as references to (as the case may be)—
	(a) the return or recovery of any property provided under the transaction,
	(b) to the extent that such is incapable of being returned or recovered or its market value has diminished since the time the transaction was entered into, the repayment or recovery of the market value at that time, or
	(c) the market value (at that time) of any facilities or services provided under the transaction.
	Transfer to unauthorised participant invalid
	7 If an authorised participant purports to transfer his interest in a controlled transaction to a person who is not an authorised participant the purported transfer is of no effect.
	Offences
	8 (1) An individual who is a regulated participant commits an offence if—
	(a) he enters into a controlled transaction of a description mentioned in paragraph 2(1) or (2) in which another participant is not an authorised participant, and
	(b) he knew or ought reasonably to have known that the other participant was not an authorised participant.
	(2) A responsible person of a members association commits an offence if—
	(a) the association enters into a controlled transaction of a description mentioned in paragraph 2(1) or (2) in which another participant is not an authorised participant, and
	(b) he knew or ought reasonably to have known of the matters mentioned in paragraph (a).
	(3) An individual who is a regulated participant commits an offence if—
	(a) he enters into a controlled transaction of a description mentioned in paragraph 2(1) or (2) in which another participant is not an authorised participant,
	(b) sub-paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to him, and
	(c) as soon as practicable after knowledge that the other participant is not an authorised participant comes to him he fails to take all reasonable steps to repay any money which he has received by virtue of the transaction.
	(4) A responsible person of a members association commits an offence if—
	(a) the association enters into a controlled transaction of a description mentioned in paragraph 2(1) or (2) in which another participant is not an authorised participant,
	(b) sub-paragraph (2)(b) does not apply to him, and
	(c) as soon as practicable after knowledge of the matters mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) comes to him he fails to take all reasonable steps to repay any money which the association has received by virtue of the transaction.
	(5) An individual who is a regulated participant commits an offence if—
	(a) he benefits from or falls to benefit in consequence of a connected transaction to which any of the parties is not an authorised participant, and
	(b) he knew or ought reasonably to have known that one of the other parties was not an authorised participant.
	(6) A responsible person of a members association commits an offence if—
	(a) the association benefits from or falls to benefit in consequence of a connected transaction to which any of the parties is not an authorised participant, and
	(b) he knew or ought reasonably to have known of the matters mentioned in paragraph (a).
	(7) An individual who is a regulated participant commits an offence if—
	(a) he is a party to a transaction of a description mentioned in paragraph 2(3)(a),
	(b) he benefits from or falls to benefit in consequence of a connected transaction to which any of the parties is not an authorised participant,
	(c) sub-paragraph (5)(b) does not apply to him, and
	(d) as soon as practicable after knowledge comes to him that one of the parties to the connected transaction is not an authorised participant he fails to take all reasonable steps to repay to any person who has provided him with any benefit in consequence of the connected transaction the value of the benefit.
	(8) A responsible person of a members association commits an offence if—
	(a) the association is a party to a transaction of a description mentioned in paragraph 2(3)(a),
	(b) the association benefits from or falls to benefit in consequence of a connected transaction to which any of the parties is not an authorised participant,
	(c) sub-paragraph (6)(b) does not apply to him, and
	(d) as soon as practicable after knowledge comes to him that one of the parties to the connected transaction is not an authorised participant he fails to take all reasonable steps to repay to any person who has provided the association with any benefit in consequence of the connected transaction the value of the benefit.
	(9) A person commits an offence if he—
	(a) knowingly enters into, or
	(b) knowingly does any act in furtherance of,
	any arrangement which facilitates or is likely to facilitate, whether by means of concealment or disguise or otherwise, the participation by a regulated participant in a controlled transaction with a person other than an authorised participant.
	(10) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under sub-paragraph (2) to prove that he took all reasonable steps to prevent the members association entering the transaction.
	(11) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under sub-paragraph (6) to prove that he took all reasonable steps to prevent the members association benefiting in consequence of the connected transaction.
	(12) A reference to a regulated participant entering into a controlled transaction includes a reference to any circumstances in which the terms of a controlled transaction are varied so as to increase the amount of money to which the regulated participant is entitled in consequence of the transaction.
	(13) A reference to a regulated participant entering into a transaction in which another participant is not an authorised participant includes a reference to any circumstances in which another party to the transaction who is an authorised participant ceases (for whatever reason) to be an authorised participant.
	(14) This paragraph does not apply to a transaction which is entered into before the commencement of section 60 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006."
	Transaction reports: transactions with authorised participants
	9 (1) A regulated participant must prepare a report under this paragraph in respect of each controlled transaction entered into by him which is a recordable transaction.
	(2) For the purposes of this paragraph a controlled transaction is a recordable transaction—
	(a) if the value of the transaction is more than £5,000 (where the regulated participant is a members association) or £1,000 (in any other case); or
	(b) if the aggregate value of it and any other controlled benefit or benefits accruing to the regulated participant—
	(i) from the same person and in the same calendar year, and
	(ii) in respect of which no report has been previously made under this paragraph,
	is more than £5,000 (where the regulated participant is a members association) or £1,000 (in any other case).
	(3) A controlled benefit is—
	(a) a controlled donation within the meaning of paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 7;
	(b) a controlled transaction.
	(4) A controlled benefit which is a controlled donation accrues—
	(a) from the permissible donor (within the meaning of section 54(2)) who made it, and
	(b) when it is accepted by the donee.
	(5) A controlled benefit which is a controlled transaction accrues—
	(a) from any authorised participant who is a party to it, and
	(b) when it is entered into.
	(6) For the purposes of this paragraph, if—
	(a) the value of a controlled transaction as first entered into is such that it is not a recordable transaction, but
	(b) the terms of the transaction are subsequently varied in such a way that it becomes a recordable transaction,
	the regulated participant must be treated as having entered into a recordable transaction on the date when the variation takes effect.
	(7) A regulated participant must deliver the report prepared in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) to the Commission within the period of 30 days beginning with—
	(a) if sub-paragraph (2)(a) applies, the date on which the transaction is entered into;
	(b) if sub-paragraph (2)(b) applies, the date on which the benefit which causes the aggregate amount to exceed £5,000 or (as the case may be) £1,000 accrues.
	(8) Each report prepared in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) must—
	(a) give the name and address of the regulated participant; and
	(b) if he is the holder of a relevant elective office, specify the office in question.
	(9) Each such report must also give—
	(a) such information as is required to be given, in the case of a report prepared in accordance with section 71M, by virtue of paragraphs 2 and 5(2) and (3) of Schedule 6A;
	(b) in relation to a controlled transaction of a description mentioned in paragraph 2(1) or (2) above, such information as is required to be given, in the case of a report prepared in accordance with that section, by virtue of paragraph 6 of that Schedule;
	(c) in relation to a controlled transaction of a description mentioned in paragraph 2(3)(b) above, such information as is required to be given, in the case of a report prepared in accordance with that section, by virtue of paragraph 7 of that Schedule;
	(d) the date on which the transaction is entered into;
	(e) such other information as is required by regulations made by the Commission.
	(10) In the application of paragraphs 2, 5(2) and (3), 6 and 7 of Schedule 6A in accordance with sub-paragraph (9) above—
	(a) any reference to a recordable transaction within the meaning of that Schedule must be construed as a reference to a recordable transaction within the meaning of this paragraph;
	(b) any reference to section 71G or section 71F(4)(a) must be construed as a reference to paragraph 3 above or paragraph 2(3)(a) above;
	(c) any reference to a regulated transaction or a registered party within the meaning of that Schedule must be construed as a reference to a controlled transaction or a regulated participant within the meaning of this paragraph;
	(d) any reference to a transaction report within the meaning of that Schedule must be construed as a reference to a report under this paragraph.
	Transaction reports: transactions with unauthorised participants
	10 (1) A regulated participant must—
	(a) prepare a report under this paragraph in respect of each controlled transaction entered into by him and falling within paragraph 5 or 6(1)(b); and
	(b) deliver the report to the Commission within the period of 30 days beginning with the date when the transaction was dealt with in accordance with that paragraph.
	(2) Each such report must—
	(a) give the name and address of the regulated participant;
	(b) if he is the holder of a relevant elective office, specify the office in question.
	(3) Each such report in respect of a transaction falling within paragraph 5 must also give—
	(a) the name and address of the unauthorised participant;
	(b) the nature of the transaction (that is to say, whether it is a loan or a credit facility);
	(c) the value of the transaction or, in the case of a credit facility to which no limit is specified, a statement to that effect;
	(d) the date on which the transaction was entered into and the date when, and manner in which, it was dealt with in accordance with paragraph 5;
	(e) such other information as is required by regulations made by the Commission.
	(4) Each such report in respect of a transaction falling within paragraph 6(1)(b) must also give—
	(a) the name and address of the unauthorised participant;
	(b) the value of the transaction or, in the case of a security to which no limit is specified, a statement to that effect;
	(c) a description of the principal features of the transaction mentioned in paragraph 6(1)(a);
	(d) where the security given consists in or includes rights over any property, the nature of that property;
	(e) the date on which the transaction was entered into and the date when, and manner in which, it was dealt with in accordance with paragraph 6;
	(f) such other information as is required by regulations made by the Commission.
	Transaction reports: changes to recorded transactions
	11 (1) A regulated participant must—
	(a) prepare a report under this paragraph in respect of each change to a recorded transaction; and
	(b) deliver the report to the Commission within the period of 30 days beginning with the date on which the change takes effect.
	(2) A recorded transaction is a transaction recorded in a report under paragraph 9.
	(3) There is a change to a recorded transaction if—
	(a) another authorised participant becomes party to the transaction (whether in place of or in addition to any existing participant),
	(b) there is any change in the details given in relation to the transaction in pursuance of paragraph 9(9), or
	(c) the transaction comes to an end.
	(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(c), a loan comes to an end if—
	(a) the whole debt (or all the remaining debt) is repaid;
	(b) the creditor releases the whole debt (or all the remaining debt).
	(5) There is also a change to a recorded transaction if a person who is not an authorised participant becomes party to the transaction (whether in place of or in addition to any existing participant).
	(6) Each report prepared in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) must—
	(a) give the name and address of the regulated participant; and
	(b) if he is the holder of a relevant elective office, specify the office in question.
	(7) Each such report must also give—
	(a) details of the change;
	(b) the date on which the change takes effect;
	(c) in the case of a change falling within sub-paragraph (5), the date when and the manner in which the transaction was dealt with in accordance with paragraph 5 or 6;
	(d) such other information as is required by regulations made by the Commission.
	Offence of failing to deliver transaction report
	12 (1) Where a report required to be delivered to the Commission under paragraph 9(1), 10(1) or 11(1) is not delivered by the end of the period of 30 days mentioned in paragraph 9(7), 10(1) or 11(1)—
	(a) the regulated participant, or
	(b) (if a members association) the responsible person,
	is guilty of an offence.
	(2) If such a report is delivered to the Commission which does not comply with any requirements of paragraph 9, 10 or 11 as regards the information to be given in such a report—
	(a) the regulated participant, or
	(b) (if a members association) the responsible person,
	is guilty of an offence.
	(3) Where a person is charged with an offence under this paragraph, it shall be a defence to prove that he took all reasonable steps, and exercised all due diligence, to ensure that any requirements—
	(a) as regards the preparation and delivery of a report in respect of the transaction in question, or
	(b) as regards the information to be given in the report in question,
	as the case may be, were complied with in relation to that transaction or report.
	(4) Where the court is satisfied, on an application made by the Commission, that any failure to comply with any such requirements in relation to any transaction entered into by a regulated participant was attributable to an intention on the part of any person to conceal the existence or true value of the transaction, the court may make such order as it thinks fit to restore (so far as is possible) the parties to the transaction to the position they would have been in if the transaction had not been entered into.
	(5) An order under sub-paragraph (4) may in particular—
	(a) where the transaction is a loan or credit facility, require that any amount owed by the regulated participant be repaid (and that no further sums be advanced under it);
	(b) where any form of security is given for a sum owed under the transaction, or the transaction is an arrangement by which any form of security is given, require that the security be discharged.
	Declaration in transaction report
	13 (1) Each report under paragraph 9 or 10 must, when delivered to the Commission, be accompanied by a declaration made by—
	(a) the regulated participant, or
	(b) (if a members association) the responsible person,
	which complies with sub-paragraph (2) or (3).
	(2) In the case of a report under paragraph 9, the declaration must state that, to the best of the declarant's knowledge and belief, any transaction recorded in the report as having been entered into by the regulated participant was entered into with an authorised participant.
	(3) In the case of a report under paragraph 10, the declaration must state that, to the best of the declarant's knowledge and belief, the transaction recorded in the report as having been entered into by the regulated participant has been dealt with in accordance with paragraph 5 or 6.
	(4) A person commits an offence if he knowingly or recklessly makes a false declaration under this paragraph.
	Existing transactions
	14 (1) Paragraphs 9 to 11 have effect in relation to existing transactions as they have effect in relation to transactions entered into after the date on which those paragraphs come into force, except that—
	(a) references in paragraph 9 to a controlled benefit do not include references to a controlled donation;
	(b) in paragraph 9(2)(b)(i) the words "and in the same calendar year" are omitted;
	(c) the requirement in paragraph 9(7), 10(1)(b) or 11(1)(b) is a requirement to deliver the report within the period of 60 days beginning with the date on which that provision comes into force.
	(2) An existing transaction is a controlled transaction which, at the date on which paragraphs 9 to 11 come into force, has not come to an end for the purposes of paragraph 11(3)(c).
	Register of recordable transactions
	15 (1) Section 71V applies in relation to transactions reported to the Commission under this Schedule ("relevant transactions") as it applies to transactions reported to them under Part 4A of this Act.
	(2) But in its application in accordance with sub-paragraph (1), section 71V(2) has effect in relation to a relevant transaction as if (instead of requiring the register to contain the details mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of that subsection) it required the register to contain such details as have been given in relation to the transaction in pursuance of paragraph 9(8) and (9), 10(2), (3) and (4) or 11(6) and (7).
	16 (1) Paragraph 9 does not apply to holders of relevant elective office.
	(2) Sub-paragraph (2) applies in relation to transactions in which a holder of a relevant elective office is a participant if—
	(a) the relevant body has in place arrangements requiring the holder of the office to report such transactions, and
	(b) the Commission think that the arrangements correspond to the requirements of paragraph 9.
	(3) The Commission must make such arrangements as they think appropriate corresponding to section 71V (subject to such modifications as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations) to maintain a register of such information as they receive relating to such transactions.
	(4) In sub-paragraph (2)(a) a relevant body is—
	(a) if the holder of a relevant elective office is a member of a body mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (f) of paragraph 1(8) of Schedule 7, that body;
	(b) if the holder of a relevant elective office is the Mayor of London, the London Assembly;
	(c) if the holder of a relevant elective office is an elected mayor within the meaning of Part 2 of the Local Government Act 2000, the local authority of which he is the mayor.
	(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) it is immaterial whether the transaction is entered into by the holder of the office in that capacity or in his capacity as a member of a registered party.
	Proceedings under paragraphs 5 and 12
	17 (1) This paragraph has effect in relation to proceedings on applications under paragraphs 5(4) and 12(4).
	(2) The court is—
	(a) in England and Wales, the county court;
	(b) in Scotland, the sheriff, and the proceedings are civil proceedings;
	(c) in Northern Ireland, the county court.
	(3) The standard of proof is that applicable to civil proceedings.
	(4) An order may be made whether or not proceedings are brought against any person for an offence under paragraph 8 or 12(1) or (2).
	(5) An appeal against an order made by the sheriff may be made to the Court of Session.
	(6) Rules of court may make provision—
	(a) with respect to applications or appeals from proceedings on such applications;
	(b) for the giving of notice of such applications or appeals to persons affected;
	(c) for the joinder, or in Scotland sisting, of such persons as parties;
	(d) generally with respect to procedure in such applications or appeals.
	(7) Sub-paragraph (6) does not affect any existing power to make rules."
	96D In section 156(4) (provision about subordinate legislation), after paragraph (i) insert—
	"(ia) paragraph 2(9) or 4(4) of Schedule 7A,".
	96E In Schedule 20 (penalties), after the entry relating to paragraph 14(5) of Schedule 7 insert—
	
		
			  
			 Paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 7A (individual regulated participant knowingly enters controlled transaction with unauthorised participant) On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 12 monthsOn indictment: fine or 1 year 
			 Paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 7A (responsible person of members association which enters controlled transaction with unauthorised participant) On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 12 monthsOn indictment: fine or 1 year 
			 Paragraph 8(3) of Schedule 7A (individual regulated participant failing to repay money obtained under controlled transaction with unauthorised participant) On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 12 monthsOn indictment: fine or 1 year 
			 Paragraph 8(4) of Schedule 7A (responsible person failing to repay money obtained by members association under controlled transaction with unauthorised participant) On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 12 monthsOn indictment: fine or 1 year 
			 Paragraph 8(5) of Schedule 7A (regulated participant knowingly benefits from connected transaction involving unauthorised participant) On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 12 monthsOn indictment: fine or 1 year 
			 Paragraph 8(6) of Schedule 7A (responsible person of members association which knowingly benefits from connected transaction involving unauthorised participant) On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 12 monthsOn indictment: fine or 1 year 
			 Paragraph 8(7) of Schedule 7A (individual regulated participant failing to repay value of benefit obtained in consequence of connected transaction involving unauthorised participant) On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 12 monthsOn indictment: fine or 1 year 
			 Paragraph 8(8) of Schedule 7A (responsible person failing to repay value of benefit obtained by members association in consequence of connected transaction involving unauthorised participant) On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 12 monthsOn indictment: fine or 1 year 
			 Paragraph 8(9) of Schedule 7A (facilitating controlled transaction involving unauthorised participant) On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 12 monthsOn indictment: fine or 1 year 
			 Paragraph 12(1) of Schedule 7A (failure to deliver transaction report to Commission within time limit) On summary conviction: Level 5 
			 Paragraph 12(2) of Schedule 7A (failure to comply with requirements for recording transactions on transaction reports) On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 12 monthsOn indictment: fine or 1 year 
			 Paragraph 13(4) of Schedule 7A (making a false declaration about a transaction report) On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 12 monthsOn indictment: fine or 1 year 
		
	
	96F (1) The Secretary of State must not make an order under section 74 for the purposes of paragraph 16 of Schedule 7A to the 2000 Act (as inserted by paragraph 96C) as it applies to the holders of a relevant elective office unless he is informed by the Commission that they are satisfied that they will receive the information mentioned in paragraph 16(2) of that Schedule (as so inserted) in relation to such holders of relevant elective office.
	(2) In sub-paragraph (1) references to the holder of a relevant elective office must be construed in accordance with Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 69:
	Page 118, line 30, at end insert—
	"In section 3 (appointment of Electoral Commissioners and Commission chairman), in subsection (4)(d) after sub-paragraph (iii) insert ", or
	(iv) been named as a participant in the register of recordable transactions reported under Part 4A.""

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 70, 71, 73 and 74. This group of amendments makes minor consequential amendments to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to reflect the introduction of the new regime for regulated transactions.
	Amendment No. 69 will exclude those people who have made loans to political parties from being eligible to be electoral commissioners. That mirrors the situation that applies to donations. Amendment No. 70 adds new Part 4A of PPERA to the responsibilities of the treasurer of a registered party. It does that through an amendment to Section 24(4)(a) of PPERA, and Amendment No. 71 does the same to the responsibilities of the treasurer of an accounting unit through an amendment to Section 27(2)(a).
	Amendment No. 73 amends both Sections 146 and 148 of PPERA. In Section 146, which covers the supervisory powers of the commission, the amendment extends its powers to inspect records relating to loans. Section 148 deals with general offences, and the amendment changes the definition of "supervised individual", "relevant person" and "regulated donee" to include "regulated participants" or those involved with giving loans to political parties. Amendment No. 74 sets out that an electoral commissioner shall cease to hold office if he is named as a participant in the register of recordable transactions—that is, if he gives a loan to a political party. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 70 to 78:
	Page 118, line 30, at end insert—
	"In section 24 (office-holders to be registered), in subsection (4), for paragraph (a) substitute—
	"(a) with the provisions of parts 3, 4 and 4A (accounting requirements and control of donations, loans and certain other transactions)"."
	Page 118, line 30, at end insert—
	" In section 27 (financial structure of registered parties: accounting units), in subsection (2)(a) for "Parts III and IV" substitute "Parts 3, 4 and 4A"."
	Page 119, line 19, at end insert—
	"(1) Section 62 (quarterly donation reports) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (3) insert—
	"(3A) "Relevant benefit", in relation to any person and any year, means—
	(a) a relevant donation accepted by the party from that person as a donor, or
	(b) a relevant transaction within the meaning of section 71M(3) entered into by the party and that person as a participant;
	and a relevant benefit accrues when it is accepted (if it is a donation) or entered into (if it is a transaction)."
	(3) In subsection (4)—
	(a) for "donation or donations" (in both places) substitute "benefit or benefits";
	(b) after "this subsection" insert "or section 71M(4)";
	(c) in paragraph (b) for "donations" substitute "benefits".
	(4) In subsection (5), in paragraph (b)—
	(a) for "as part of" substitute "together with any other relevant donation or donations included in";
	(b) for "donation" (in the second place) substitute "benefit";
	(c) for "is accepted" substitute "accrues".
	(5) In subsection (6)—
	(a) for "donation or donations" (in the first four places) substitute "benefit or benefits";
	(b) after "subsection (4)" (in the first place) insert "or section 71M(4)";
	(c) in paragraph (a), for "subsection (4)" substitute "that provision";
	(d) in paragraph (b), after "this subsection" insert "or section 71M(6)";
	(e) for the words following paragraph (b) substitute "any relevant donation falling within subsection (6A)".
	(6) After subsection (6) insert—
	"(6A) A relevant donation falls within this subsection—
	(a) if it is a donation of more than £1,000, or
	(b) if, when it is added to any other relevant benefit or benefits accruing since the time mentioned in subsection (6)(a) or (b), the aggregate amount of the benefits is more than £1,000."
	(7) In subsection (7)(a), for "donation" (in the first place) substitute "benefit".
	(8) In subsection (7)(b)—
	(a) for "as part of" substitute "together with any other relevant donation or donations included in";
	(b) for "that subsection" substitute "subsection (6A)";
	(c) for "donation" (in the second place) substitute "benefit";
	(d) for "is accepted" substitute "accrues"."
	Page 119, line 22, at end insert—
	"(1) Section 146 (supervisory powers of Commission) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (7) after paragraph (a) (before "or") insert—
	"(aa) a regulated participant (or former regulated participant),".
	(3) In subsection (8), after paragraph (a) (before "or) insert—
	"(aa) such information or explanations relating to the income and expenditure of regulated participants in connection with the political activities as the Commission reasonably require for the purpose of monitoring compliance on the part of regulated participants with the requirements imposed on them by or by virtue of Schedule 7A,".
	(4) In subsection (9), after the definition of "regulated donee" insert—
	"regulated participant" and "political activities" in relation to a regulated participant must be construed in accordance with Schedule 7A;".
	(1) Section 148(6) (general offences) is amended as follows.
	(2) In paragraph (a), after "donee" insert "regulated participant".
	(3) In paragraph (b), after sub-paragraph (ii) insert—
	"(iia) a regulated participant which is a members association,".
	(4) In paragraph (c), after sub-paragraph (iii) insert—
	"(iiia) in relation to a regulated participant which is a members association, the person responsible for the purposes of Schedule 7A,".
	(5) After paragraph (d) insert—
	"(da) "regulated participant" has the same meaning as in Schedule 7A;"."
	Page 119, line 22, at end insert—
	" In Schedule 1 (the Electoral Commission), in paragraph 3(3) (term of office etc of Electoral Commissioners) after paragraph (c) insert—
	"(ca) he is named as a participant in the register of recordable transactions reported under Part 4A;"."
	Page 119, line 22, at end insert—
	"In Schedule 6, after paragraph 5 insert—

"Application of reporting requirement

5A If the requirement to record the donation arises only because the value of the donation has, for the purposes of section 62(4) or (6), been aggregated with the value of any relevant transaction or transactions (within the meaning of section 71M), a quarterly report must contain a statement to that effect.""
	Page 119, line 24, at end insert—
	"( ) In paragraph 2—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (1), omit paragraph (d);
	(b) in sub-paragraph (3), omit paragraph (a);
	(c) in sub-paragraph (3) omit "the loan or"."
	Page 119, line 26, at end insert—
	"( ) In paragraph 5(4)—
	(a) for "2(1)(d) or (e)" substitute "2(1)(e)";
	(b) in paragraph (a) omit "the loan or";
	(c) in paragraph (a) omit sub-paragraph (i) and "or" following it".
	Page 119, line 26, at end insert—
	"( ) In paragraph 10, for sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) substitute—
	"(1) A regulated donee must prepare a report under this paragraph in respect of each controlled donation accepted by the donee which is a recordable donation.
	(1A) For the purposes of this paragraph a controlled donation is a recordable donation—
	(a) if it is a donation of more than £5,000 (where the donee is a members association) or £1,000 (in any other case);
	(b) if, when it is added to any other controlled benefit or benefits accruing to the donee—
	(i) from the same person and in the same calendar year, and
	(ii) in respect of which no report has been previously made under this paragraph,
	the aggregate amount of the benefits is more than £5,000 (where the donee is a members association) or £1,000 (in any other case).
	(1B) A controlled benefit is—
	(a) a controlled donation;
	(b) a controlled transaction within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Schedule 7A.
	(1C) A controlled benefit which is a controlled donation accrues—
	(a) from the permissible donor who made it, and
	(b) when it is accepted by the donee.
	(1D) A controlled benefit which is a controlled transaction accrues—
	(a) from any authorised participant (within the meaning of paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 7A) who is a party to it, and
	(b) when it is entered into;
	and paragraph 9(6) of Schedule 7A applies for the purposes of paragraph (b) above.
	(2) A regulated donee must deliver the report prepared by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) to the Commission within the period of 30 days beginning with—
	(a) if sub-paragraph (1A)(a) applies, the date of acceptance of the donation;
	(b) if sub-paragraph (1A)(b) applies, the date on which the benefit which causes the aggregate amount to exceed £5,000 or (as the case may be) £1,000 accrues."
	( ) In that paragraph, in each of sub-paragraphs (6) and (7)—
	(a) after "In the case of" insert "a controlled benefit which is";
	(b) for "sub-paragraph (2)(b)" substitute "sub-paragraph (1A)(b)";
	(c) for "by the same permissible donor" substitute "from the same person".
	( ) In paragraph 12(1), for "that provision" substitute "paragraph 10(2) or 11(1)"."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 79:
	Page 119, line 31, at end insert—
	:TITLE3:"European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003 (c. 7)
	In section 12 of the European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003—
	(a) in subsection (3) after paragraph (b) insert—
	"(ba) the regulation of loans or credit facilities which benefit, or any form of security (whether real or personal) which benefits, registered parties in Gibraltar or their members or officers;";
	(b) in subsection (4), before the definition of "donation" insert—
	""credit facilities" must be construed in accordance with section 71F(11) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000;"."

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that prior to the European Parliament elections in 2004, the Government legislated in the European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003 to enable Gibraltar to vote in European Parliament elections. The 2003 Act provided for a new combined region to be created to include Gibraltar. It also provided for consequential amendments to be made in connection with Gibraltar participating in the elections.
	The 2003 Act expressly provides for amendments to be made concerning the control of donations. The donations regime for political parties and members' associations was extended to Gibraltar. The Gibraltar equivalents of permissible donors were also permitted to donate to United Kingdom political parties. A limit is placed on the amount of donations and they can be made only during the four months before an election to the European Parliament. At the same time, provision was made to extend the reporting requirements.
	It seems only right, therefore, to provide power for the regulated transactions regime to be extended to Gibraltar for the European Parliament elections, as was done for donations. The amendment achieves this by amending the existing power in Section 12 of the European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 2 [Repeals]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 80 and 81:
	Page 122, line 2, column 2, at end insert- "( ) in paragraph 2, sub-paragraph (1)(d), sub-paragraph (3)(a) and, in sub-paragraph (3), the words "the loan or""
	Page 122, line 4, column 2, at end insert- "( ) in paragraph 5(4)(a), the words "the loan or", sub-paragraph (i) and the "or" following it"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
	On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

Read a third time.
	Clause 4 [Appeals]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 2, line 22, leave out ", 16 or 17" and insert "or 16"

Lord Adonis: My Lords, before I speak to Amendment No. 1, I would like to record the Government's position on carers on behalf of adults who lack capacity, an important issue on which there has been prolonged and helpful discussion between my noble friend Lady Royall and myself and noble Lords on both sides of the House. I thank the carers' organisations and other groups that have assisted us. The discussions have been so productive that we do not face an amendment to Clause 6, which is why I want to take this opportunity to record officially the position that we have now reached. I set it out at length in a letter this morning to my noble friend Lord Harris, copied to other noble Lords, which I believe offers a constructive way forward.
	Our shared view is that individuals who arrange care for family and friends should take part in the new vetting and barring scheme, and be given strong official encouragement to do so. However, we do not want potentially to criminalise those vulnerable adults, and their friends and family members, by making them liable to the formal legal duties and penalties in the Bill. We therefore intend to include in a revised code of practice under the Mental Capacity Act an expectation that carers will require those whom they employ on behalf of vulnerable adults in the home to be subject to monitoring. In addition, a booklet specifically targeted at individuals making decisions on behalf of family and friends will set out that recommendation in the same terms. That booklet will be distributed as widely as possible through local authorities, carer agencies and other organisations. I trust that that approach is acceptable to the House and will allay previous concerns on this difficult issue.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's statement, which is extremely helpful, and in particular that the Government will set out in the material that they produce a clear expectation on people who organise care under these circumstances. All along, I have sought to create a situation in which carers who are doing their best to look after their loved ones—as all of them will be—are not criminalised or put under unnecessary requirements, but given a piece of paper that enables them to go forward and require people to agree that their names be checked against the register. If the expectation is to be of that nature, what my noble friend announced is extremely welcome.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, we are grateful to my noble friend and other noble Lords for how they have raised the issue, and have great sympathy with the objectives that they have sought to achieve. I can give him the assurance that he seeks—that we will set out the expectation in both the code of practice and booklets targeted specifically at individuals making decisions on behalf of family and friends, in the terms that I described earlier.
	I shall now speak to Amendments Nos. 1, 12, 14, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 30 and 31, which together repeal the disqualification order regime and provide for it to be succeeded by the new vetting and barring scheme created by the Bill. By removing the courts' ability to make disqualification orders and ensuring that the new scheme provides an equivalent and equally robust replacement, the system for vetting and barring unsuitable adults will be further simplified and more effective at safeguarding children.
	Disqualification orders are made only by senior courts, such as the Crown Court, and are available when an offender has been convicted of specified offences against children. The court uses different presumptions depending on the age of the offender and the sentence received. When an adult offender receives a "qualifying sentence", a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment or more, a disqualification order must be made unless the court is satisfied that it is unlikely that the individual will commit any further offence against a child.
	When a juvenile offender receives a qualifying sentence, a disqualification order must be made if the court is satisfied that it is likely that the individual will commit a further offence against a child. In other cases, where an adult or juvenile does not receive a qualifying sentence, a disqualification order may be made if the court is satisfied that the offender is likely to commit a further offence against a child. The disqualification order bars offenders from working with children and covers the same scope as the bar which applies to those on List 99 and the Protection of Children Act list, which will be replaced by the new scheme.
	The offences which trigger consideration of a disqualification order are listed at Schedule 4 to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, as amended. These offences will, in almost all cases, be included in the list of specified offences for automatic barring under the provisions of this Bill. This is the means by which we will ensure that the coverage of the scheme is no less than that of the disqualification order regime that it replaces.
	The mechanism by which the CRB can identify those who have committed the specified offences, as set out in Amendment No. 24, would be a frequent search of the police national computer for all those with new cautions and convictions for specified offences. The Criminal Records Bureau currently searches the police national computer at least once a day for relevant information, and this would be utilised to ensure that the CRB is aware of new offences within a short space of time following a conviction or a caution.
	The new scheme will not only be able to bar automatically those in respect of whom a disqualification order can currently be made but also bar in cases where a disqualification order cannot currently be imposed; for example, in relation to those who are cautioned for offences and those who are convicted in magistrates' courts. The new provision to bar following conviction or caution for certain offences applies also to the vulnerable adults list.
	I need hardly say that running a judicial-based barring scheme alongside an administrative barring scheme involves considerable duplication which is not in the public interest and we are seeking to eliminate that duplication. We also intend to make transitional arrangements to cover those who are already subject to disqualification orders. Any amendments required to do that will be introduced in the other place. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I begin with the position regarding carers to which the Minister referred at the start of this debate. I am pleased that he has made such considerable advances in this matter and several others as the Bill has progressed through this House. We started considering the Bill by talking about the need for cross-party consensus, and that consensus has made a real difference. This evening's amendments and the Minister's explanation that we were sent in advance, together with his letter addressed to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, mean that we will deliver a Bill that is in good shape to our honourable friends in another place.
	I am extremely grateful for the Minister's response to all of our concerns regarding Clause 6 and support for carers. I have no doubt that he will have checked with care with his department and his lawyers to ensure that it is possible to use the word "expected" with regard to checking the barred status of people employed to work with those whom they care for. In other words, the kind of language that the Minister feels will be used in the code of practice will go a long way to meeting concerns that we have all expressed regarding such sensitive relationships in private arrangements in an informal environment. So we have made real progress, and I am grateful to the Minister for that.
	I turn briefly to the group of amendments. It is right and proper that the lists produced by the IBB are comprehensive. It appears that the amendments essentially tighten up the system, and the automatic barring of individuals who have received cautions for offences is certainly the correct step to take. We very much support these amendments.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister not only for his reassurances this evening on direct payments but on so many issues raised during the progress of the Bill. He and other Ministers have actually listened to the concerns raised in this House and taken action on them. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that we are delivering a much better Bill to another place.
	The code of practice on direct payments which the noble Lord outlined may very well work well. It is a pity that he was not able to convince Sense, Voice UK, the Ann Craft Trust, Respond, Mencap and, possibly, Help the Aged. The first five sent us a heartfelt briefing asking us to press the matter with the Minister. I hope that they too are satisfied that the processes which the noble Lord outlined will work well. Can he reassure us that the situation will be monitored and the Government will keep a careful eye on how the code of practice works to ensure that our fears about people with malign intent gravitating towards those who make direct payments to avoid being caught up in the new robust system are not realised?
	I hope the Government will ask carers how they feel about having to ask for the check even though that is not mandatory but voluntary. Many noble Lords pointed out that it would be easier for carers to ask for the check when they knew that that they had to do so. If that could be monitored and reported back to the House at an appropriate stage, we would all be very grateful to know exactly how well it is working. I hope that our fears will prove groundless.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their contributions on all the issues relating to the Bill which have enabled us to improve it as we send it to another place. I believe that we have found an effective way forward in this difficult issue of carers in the home. I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that the wording in the revised code of practice will be that there is an expectation that carers will require those whom they employ of behalf of vulnerable adults in the home to be subject to monitoring. The expectation will also be made clear to those who undertake the caring that they will be expected to make themselves subject to monitoring within the scheme. I hope that that will go a long way to meeting the concerns, which I recognise, expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that those making arrangements on behalf of vulnerable adults will have to ask whether the individual is subject to monitoring. In fact, the regime normally applying will be that they have made themselves subject to monitoring.
	I accept that this is a difficult issue of balance which we have had to wrestle with—on the one hand, taking forward a significant tightening-up of the system regarding our expectations of monitoring; and, on the other, the availability of advice to carers that they can and should conduct the CRB checks as appropriate without seeking to criminalise those who are making arrangements often on behalf of family members in their own home.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked whether we would keep the issue under review. I can give an undertaking that we will do so. We also intend to share with noble Lords and with colleagues in another place the draft wording that we will put in the code of practice as and when it is available. On that basis, I hope that the amendments will be accepted. These amendments are actually on disqualification orders but, in agreeing to them, I hope noble Lords will also accept our way forward on carers.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 8 [Person not to engage in regulated activity unless subject to monitoring]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 4, line 26, at end insert—
	"(1A) An individual commits an offence if—
	(a) he engages in an activity which is a regulated activity by virtue of paragraph 1(3A) of Schedule 3, and
	(b) he is not subject to monitoring in relation to regulated activity relating to children."

Lord Adonis: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3 and 25.
	These amendments strengthen the safeguards provided by the vetting and barring scheme in relation to childminders who are required to be registered under the provisions of the Childcare Bill or who would be required to be registered but for the fact that they do not provide childcare for a child below the age of eight.
	Parents or others who make arrangements in the context of a family relationship or a relationship between friends are not "regulated activity providers" within the meaning of Clause 6. Without this amendment, when a childminder is engaged by a parent, the Bill would not require that individual to be subject to monitoring.
	Childminders operate on domestic premises in the vast majority of cases from their own homes. They also operate with very close and often unsupervised contact with children. It is therefore vital that we provide the greatest degree of protection in relation to these individuals.
	The effect of these amendments is that it will be an offence for childminders to provide childcare without being subject to monitoring, whether or not they provide that care for regulated activity providers. Childminders will therefore have by law to apply to the scheme to be monitored and go through the central vetting process. Parents will therefore be able to expect, as a matter of course, that the childminder they use is subject to monitoring and will then be able to check their barred status accordingly rather than the childminder having to tell them that the scheme does not apply to them, as could happen without the amendments.
	Amendment No. 25 ensures that childminding covered by the requirement or ability to register under the Childcare Bill and childminding that would be covered by the requirement to register if the child was not aged eight or over will be a regulated activity as defined by the Bill.
	We recognise the importance of ensuring that the IBB communicates these new requirements to the sector so that providers know what they should be doing and parents know what they can expect. The IBB will be expected to use the media, such as local authority newsletters, articles in the trade press, practitioner workshops and seminars, and the consultative groups of the vetting and barring scheme, and also the planned communications on the new regulation and inspection arrangements that will be introduced by the Childcare Bill, including the Ofsted childcare register. We wish to ensure that parents know that where care is provided outside the family home they should be able to see evidence that carers have been through the vetting and barring scheme. Local authorities will have an important role to play in this, particularly in fulfilling their new duties under the Childcare Bill to provide advice to under-fives providers on their child protection duties, including the new vetting and barring scheme. These amendments further improve the operation and scope of the new vetting and barring scheme. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we support these amendments. It is right to ensure that all individuals who practise childminding are subject to monitoring, whether that is with or without the permission of a regulated activity provider. It is essential to get this right in relation to activities such as childminding, which inevitably allows individuals to have close contact with children whose parents have offered that trust. Again, we support the amendment.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, we, too, support the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 4, line 32, after "(1)" insert ", (1A)"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 5, line 23, at end insert—
	"(12) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1), (1A) or (2) to prove that he did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to know, that he was not subject to monitoring in relation to the activity."

Lord Adonis: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17 and 26 to 29.
	These are all minor and technical amendments to the Bill. I wrote to noble Lords before Third Reading explaining the intention behind them. Amendment No. 4 restricts the circumstances in which the individual commits an offence for engaging in regulated activity when he is not subject to monitoring. It provides a defence where an individual does not know and could not reasonably be expected to know that he was not subject to monitoring in relation to the activity. The individual may rely on that defence where, for example, the IBB has failed to inform the individual that they are barred and are no longer subject to monitoring. This requirement needs to be seen in the context of the strengthening of the Bill, at the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in respect of the duties on the IBB to notify individuals. I have written to her setting out how we intend that that duty should be enforced by means of letters sent to the individual by recorded delivery and duly signed for.
	Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 make a drafting clarification to amend a reference in Clause 14(1)(h) separating out direct payment recipients from the appointments covered currently in the same subsection. Amendments Nos. 9 to 11 clarify the drafting of primary care services in line with the newly introduced NHS consolidation Bill. Amendment No. 16 is a minor drafting correction. Clause 42 should apply to all the clauses that impose duties on employers, local authorities, keepers of registers and supervisory authorities to refer information to the IBB. This amendment ensures that Clause 29 concerning regulated activity providers and their duty to provide information on request is one of those.
	Amendment No. 17 makes it clear that we have covered a situation where a nominee manages a direct payment on behalf of an individual. Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 are drafting changes to ensure that the Bill meets the policy intention that a person does not engage in regulated activity if he teaches, trains, instructs, cares for or supervises children where that teaching, training, instruction, caring for or supervising is merely incidental to the teaching, training, instruction, caring for or supervising of adults.
	Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 are minor technical amendments to correct a drafting error in the Bill. The term "public interactive communication service" is intended to cover the various methods by which individuals can make contact with each other and exchange personal information with other users of the service in a virtual public space such as, but not limited to, internet chat rooms, message boards, mobile chat services, TV text-to-screen services, online games with chat or messaging facilities and mobile games with chat facilities. The full term is already used in paragraphs 2(5) and 5(2) of Schedule 3. These are all minor and technical amendments. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I shall comment briefly on Amendment No. 4, which we welcome. We have maintained throughout the passage of the Bill that it is necessary to have the correct checks and balances in place to ensure that the system operates as fairly and practicably as possible. This amendment goes further in that direction and offers further parameters and clarity, which we welcome. However, it highlights the need for good communications from the IBB. If an individual is included on a barred list he needs to be made aware of the situation as quickly as is reasonably possible. This relates to an amendment that was originally moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. It is good that the Minister has responded to that concern about strong communication.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I welcome Amendment No. 4 in particular, which involves the defence of not being reasonably able to know that the person had been subject to monitoring. Notwithstanding the much more robust system that we now have, following my amendments, to inform the person and to ensure that we know that they have received information about being on the barred list, I pointed out on Report that mistakes sometimes get made, that letters do not arrive and that people do not get the information that they should get. It is only right that we have this defence of not being reasonably expected to know. I am grateful to the Government for bringing this forward; it is absolutely right.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I am very grateful to both noble Baronesses. I believe that these amendments notably improve the Bill.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 14 [Exception to requirement to make monitoring check]:

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 9, line 12, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I speak to this amendment with considerable optimism in terms of the Minister's reply. I make no apology for returning to this issue again. I made the point in Grand Committee and on Report that to exempt individuals who work with prisoners and those on probation, particularly the young, from monitoring simply does not seem logical. As I said before, we are referring not to hardened criminals but to the significant number of vulnerable adults and young offenders who live in close proximity to those in authority and who are effectively open to abuse in an enclosed environment.
	I am aware that the Minister is taking, and has taken, this matter very seriously, and I am looking forward to his reply in this regard. At this point, perhaps I may say that I am very grateful to the Minister, as I am sure are other noble Lords, for the meeting that we had with him and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, yesterday to discuss some of these aspects of the Bill. We were heartened to learn that Ministers had responded. We had asked them to keep working hard with regard to Clause 14 between Report and Third Reading and clearly they have done that. Therefore, we are aware that real progress is being made in this regard, for which we are grateful, and also in relation to other aspects of Clause 14, but obviously I wait to hear the Minister's reply.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 8, which is grouped with Amendment No. 5. We thoroughly support the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, in her Amendment No. 5, and we are also looking forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
	Clause 14 lists a whole series of possible exceptions to the monitoring check. There was extensive discussion about them both in Grand Committee and on Report, with a great deal of unhappiness expressed on all sides of the Chamber about some aspects of them. We have again sought to leave out Clause 14 in order to give the Minister a chance to inform the House and put on the record the developments in his thinking on these issues and on how this matter might be carried forward.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for the meeting that we held yesterday and for the way in which he has listened throughout the proceedings on the Bill. That, together with the changes that we have seen, will mean, as the two noble Baronesses have said, that the Bill will leave this House in a much better condition than it was in when it came here.
	However, I must still express—I do so even though I have not tabled an amendment—my considerable ill ease about parts of the list. I have dealt with these kinds of issues in my professional life, and I continue to be anxious about exceptions in situations where, quite frankly and crudely, people who are vulnerable and who do not know how to say no are taking off their clothes and hands are being laid on. We know that that can arise in sporting situations. However, I recognise that the Government have thought this matter through. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, and I will do all that I can to work with the Government to make their solutions work.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, this is something of a shadow discussion in that we need to hear precisely what the Minister is going to say to us before we proceed. But if his response is along the lines of the discussion that we had at our extremely useful meeting, at which coffee and tea were provided in abundance—I make a reference to our earlier discussions on Report—then clearly enormous progress will have been made on this issue and I think that his response will satisfy all those who expressed concerns at an earlier stage.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the thoughtful and thorough debate that we have had in relation to this clause and for their helpful suggestions as to how we can improve the Bill in this important area. The Government have listened to the concerns expressed and I will now set out the approach that we intend to take on this clause. Amendments will be brought forward in another place.
	I turn, first, to subsection (1)(a) of this clause, which covers complementary and alternative medicine. We understand the particularly intimate nature of these services and are prepared to move on this issue. We will therefore bring forward an amendment in the Commons to remove this paragraph. The effect will be to require providers of complementary and alternative therapies to check those undertaking regulated activity in this area. Failure to do so will be an offence.
	Secondly, paragraphs (d) to (g) of Clause 14(1) deal with those providing recreational, social, sporting or educational activities, those conducting a course of education or instruction wholly or mainly for vulnerable adults, the control or management of the provision of housing or the provision of welfare services—the latter will cover what we call "housing related support". These are the sectors where central vetting will be new in relation to vulnerable adults. We strongly believe that Clause 14 is important for these sectors as it will ensure that they are involved in the scheme as soon as possible. Naturally, it is essential to get the implementation of this scheme right. We have always thought it right to focus mandatory checks in heath and social care where the risk of abuse is highest.
	However, we have listened to the understandable concerns expressed by noble Lords, and I am happy to give a commitment today that the Government will bring forward an amendment in another place to put a sunset clause in place in relation to paragraphs (d) to (g) so that they will cease to have effect after a set period of time following commencement of these provisions. We expect this to be in the region of three years. After that period, the exemption from the requirement to make a monitoring check in relation to paragraphs (d) to (g) of this clause will be removed. I believe that this will provide a helpful adjustment period for these sectors, where checks will be made in relation to vulnerable adults for the first time. During that time, we will seek to build up a culture of good practice in these sectors. Of course, employers will be aware that there will be a clear date for the expiry of this flexibility.
	We do not intend to extend the sunset clause in relation to paragraphs (b) and (c), which deal with prison and probation services. I have spoken before about the needs of these unique services, but I have heard and understood the concerns articulated in previous debates about the particular vulnerability of these groups. I therefore make a commitment to the effect that all prison and probation officers will be checked and subject to monitoring once the scheme is operational. In addition, those working in young offender institutions who are currently checked by the Prison Service—that is, those working closely with prisoners in a caring or supervisory role—will also be checked. However, in other areas, I understand that a risk-based approach will be taken. So, for example, volunteers who are involved in counselling may be checked, but others who, for example, provide advice to a group of prisoners but are never alone with them may not be.
	Paragraph (h) concerns an area where we do not think it would be appropriate to remove this clause. First, let us consider direct payments. Throughout the proceedings on the Bill, we have strongly resisted all calls to make barred status checks mandatory for direct payments recipients on the grounds that that would be strongly opposed by the recipients themselves. Therefore, we do not intend to extend the sunset clause in relation to direct payments.
	However, I remind noble Lords of the commitment I made on Report to require local councils, by means of a requirement to be set out in regulations, to inform direct payment recipients of their right to engage with the scheme. We believe this meets our shared goal to safeguard this group of people without removing their right to take decisions independently.
	I now turn to the issue of those requiring assistance in the conduct of their affairs. Again, this is an area where removing the exemption from the requirement to check after a set period would not work. For example, the lasting power of attorney has been designed to allow people with capacity to plan ahead for a time when they may lack capacity by choosing someone they trust to make decisions on their behalf when that time comes.
	The vast majority of people appointed in these cases are trusted relatives or friends of the individual in question, and therefore a barred status check would not be necessary or appropriate. It is envisaged that checks will be carried out by the Office of the Public Guardian only in circumstances where it is clear that the attorney is not a trusted family member or friend of the individual in question. By imposing mandatory requirements on this sector, not only would we be placing an unnecessary burden on individuals looking after the interests of loved ones but, arguably, we would be placing an unnecessary burden on the new scheme.
	As has been mentioned previously, we intend to launch a communications initiative, designed to promote awareness of the new scheme. We shall ensure that the campaign targets those people who will fall within Clause 14(1)(h) of the Bill so that individuals are aware of the availability of these checks and can decide whether they would like to use the scheme.
	I am grateful for noble Lords' scrutiny of this aspect of the Bill; I am confident that it will be better as a result. We shall ensure good communications with the sectors where checks will be new so that there is a smooth introduction. I am sure that the result will be exactly what we wish to achieve together: extending the safeguards as far and as fast as practicably possible. I hope noble Lords will feel able to support this approach.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for what she has said. It is extremely helpful and, in many senses, provides the assurances that we sought.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Government for listening to us and for agreeing to bring forward amendments in another place to remove entirely paragraph (a) on complementary or alternative therapy, and to ensure that, with regard to paragraphs (d) to (g), compulsory vetting will take place, following a sunset period. This is an enormous step forward, but I appreciate that in many ways it makes sense to allow time for sensible implementation of the scheme to get things right, particularly as we are talking about central vetting being new in these categories.
	The sunset clause is a sensible measure, after which the exemptions will be removed. Of course, I am particularly pleased that the Minister has confirmed that all prison and probation officers will be checked and those working in young offender institutions in caring and supervisory roles will also now be checked as a matter of course. Huge progress has been made on that. I also accept that in other areas a risk-based approach will be taken. I thank the Minister for moving on that and I have pleasure in withdrawing the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Adonis: moved Amendments Nos. 6 and 7:
	Page 9, line 23, at end insert—
	"( ) he makes arrangements of any description in connection with the making of a payment in pursuance of section 57 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 or the provision of services paid for out of such payments;"
	Page 9, line 25, leave out "44(1)(i) or (10)(a)" and insert "44(10)(a)"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
	Clause 19 [Controlled activity relating to vulnerable adults]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendments Nos. 9 to 11:
	Page 12, line 26, leave out "in pursuance of section 16CC" and insert "under Part 1"
	Page 12, line 28, leave out from "provided" to end of line 31 and insert "under that Part"
	Page 12, line 35, leave out "3,"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 26 [Notice of barring and cessation of monitoring]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Page 17, line 11, leave out paragraph (b).
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 35 [Registers: notice of barring and cessation of monitoring]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 13:
	Page 22, line 16, at end insert—
	"but does not include information falling within paragraph 17(4A) of Schedule 2."

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 15 and 22. These minor amendments will ensure that important police information can flow to the IBB but will not be disclosed to registration authorities, such as the General Medical Council, or to supervisory authorities, such as Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, or be used by the IBB to bar a person if the chief officer of the police force which provided the information thinks it would not be in the interests of the prevention or detection of crime to disclose it to the person under consideration. Various kinds of information may fit this category, but the most common is information related to an ongoing investigation which, if it were released to the individual, may jeopardise an ongoing police investigation.
	Information of this kind is not currently sent to individuals, and it would be unjust to bar an individual on the basis of information that cannot be released to them, so Amendment No. 15 ensures that the IBB cannot bar an individual on the basis of such information. However, we do not wish to prevent entirely the IBB from seeing this information, as it may help it to identify risks and to liaise with the police as investigations continue. For example, if the IBB is aware that an investigation is under way it can work closely with the police and use the information as part of a barring decision as soon as the police are content for it to be released.
	As Amendment No. 22 prevents the IBB using this information in a barring decision, the board is not under a duty to disclose the information to the individual. This will ensure that confidential police information is not released inappropriately. These are minor amendments to improve the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, they are minor but important amendments. The IBB will need to have a good working relationship with the police. From what the Minister has just said, my understanding is that the amendments appear to offer the police the necessary facilities to utilise sensitive intelligence, which is a very welcome step. I understand that the restriction on the IBB in this respect will not prevent it making what one hopes will be the right decision, because the necessary information will be made available to it. We support the amendments.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, the amendments may be minor but I find them a little worrying. I would like to question the Minister about them. While I understand that no one would want to prejudice a successful ongoing police operation to charge and convict someone who genuinely should be charged and convicted, I am a little puzzled, as it seems that information can be given to the IBB, but it cannot be used in a barring decision because, if it were, it would have to be disclosed to the person concerned, which would not be desirable. What about the situation where the only information that the IBB has on which to make the correct barring decision about someone is such information, and it has no other grounds on which to put that person on the barred list? I am afraid that this may put children at risk. Can the Minister explain to us that that will not happen? This comes before us at a very late stage in the passage of the Bill, so we do not have an opportunity to unpick it. If the Minister cannot set our minds at rest, another place will have an opportunity to question these amendments in a little more detail than we can today.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I have similar concerns. I thought that perhaps I did not quite understand how this would work. Maybe the Minister could elucidate further. I am concerned that an employer might end up with one of these people in their employment because they had not been on the barred list. I am not sure how that would relate to the CRB checks. The whole matter gives great cause for concern that one of these individuals may end up working in a restricted area of employment.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, my understanding is that the number of cases will be very small indeed. They will be cases where the relevant chief officer of police, in the force concerned, is of the view, on the basis of the evidence that had been accumulated, that it would impede ongoing investigations if information were released to the person under consideration. It is not expected, in all but the most exceptional cases—even within those cases—that it would be for a long period at all. It would be for whatever period were necessary to complete the investigations.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps the Minister could explain the purpose of the subsection. If the police do not want the information to be used, and if the IBB cannot use information, why do the police pass it to the IBB? Why not just keep it to themselves?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the reason for ensuring that the IBB is aware of information is so that it can act as expeditiously as possible once a decision is made. Such information may be available to the IBB—taking up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley—in conjunction with other information that it has. The process of communication between the IBB and the police would be enhanced if it were able to see information that was currently held from other sources in the context of information that the police did not wish to be disclosed.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, can the Minister reassure us that, however small the number, no child will be put at risk while an investigation in some other area takes place and an individual was, therefore, not properly barred? I am sure a mechanism could be found to ensure that. I think that this House needs reassurance on the record.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, we regard it as the responsibility of the police, where they ask for this information, to ensure it is not disclosed to the individual, so that children are not thereby put at any additional risk. The regime currently applies in the context of the CRB and its relationship with the police, so this is not a new situation. These amendments have been tabled to ensure that the new regime is compliant with the current one. However, I will write to the noble Baroness and other noble Lords to underline this point.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Given what he says, can he assure us that, when this mechanism has been in place in the past, no offences have been committed while the police had asked for stay on the process of putting somebody on a barred list?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I do not have that information, so cannot give that assurance. I am sure that if it were the case, we would have been made aware. I undertake to write to the noble Baroness and let her know. I am sure that, as she says, this issue will be explored further in another place.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 14:
	Page 23, line 35, leave out paragraph (b).
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 38 [Provision of information to supervisory authorities]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 15:
	Page 25, line 25, at end insert—
	"but does not include information falling within paragraph 17(4A) of Schedule 2."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 42 [Damages]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 16:
	Page 26, line 17, after "28," insert " 29,"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 44 [Vulnerable adults]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 17:
	Page 27, line 12, after "him" insert "(or to another on his behalf)"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 47 [Amendments]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 18:
	Page 29, line 39, at end insert—
	"(2) Schedule (Repeals) contains repeals."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 2 [Barred lists]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 19:
	Page 36, line 2, after "child" insert "before the commencement of section 2"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 20:
	Page 36, line 14, leave out "child"

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I intend to be extremely brief. The Government know exactly why I have tabled this amendment again: it is a vehicle to give the Minister the opportunity to tell me what he intends to do about it.
	The intention behind my amendment is to line up the vulnerable adults part of Schedule 2 with the children's part, having in mind that certain kinds of adult pornography would not necessarily indicate that there should be an area of concern. Some kinds of pornography, however, may well indicate an area of concern for somebody working with children. The IBB should be given the opportunity to decide which is which. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which I supported on Report. The amendment points out an inconsistency in the Bill, which would see the definition of inappropriate behaviour to a child relating to child pornography, but not other forms of pornography. The omission is clear.
	The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, also supported the amendment, and I was heartened to hear the Minister's response on Report, which was that this inconsistency was,
	"a fair and reasonable case on the discrepancy between paragraphs 4(1) and 9(1)".
	The Minister also stated:
	"Intensive conversations are taking place between departments on this issue. If the noble Baroness will permit me, I would like to return with an appropriate amendment in this area at Third Reading".—[Official Report, 24/05/06; col. 834.]
	As there is no new amendment from the Minister, I support that of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I find it extraordinary that we have not had some movement on this. My experience is mainly in the field of children, and I know a great deal more about child pornography than I do about adult pornography. I do, however, know that these are images of people being abused. The abuse of vulnerable adults in this way is equal, in emotional damage caused, to the abuse of children when you know that your image, in a sexual pose, is being flashed around the internet.
	Some of us might wish to, but this is not about dealing with pornography in the broadest sense. It is about protecting vulnerable adults who may find their images being used in pornography.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, let me be clear that this is another instance where your Lordships have identified a straightforward anomaly in the Bill. It is not that we have not moved; we have moved. It is that parliamentary counsel have not yet been able to alight on the precise words which would enable me to deal with this anomaly in an entirely satisfactory way.
	However, I can put on record that the Government will introduce an amendment during the Bill's passage through another House, to achieve the intended effect of reconciling the treatment of pornography for both adults' and children's workforces without reducing the protection provided to either group. The exact wording will be established by parliamentary counsel, and will involve looking at both children's and adults' provisions, to ensure that we cover all the situations we would wish in reconciling provisions, to meet precisely the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. With this reassurance, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister and other Members of your Lordships' House for their support. I hope that he will bear in mind that the sort of pornography we are talking about—not just child pornography—is not just that which involves vulnerable adults. There may be other kinds of adult pornography, such as that which might portray adults dressed as children, which the IBB might consider entirely inappropriate. I hope parliamentary counsel will be able to cover those in the wording that it comes up with.
	I am pleased that there has been movement, however, and look forward to seeing the Government's amendment when the Bill comes to another place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Adonis: moved Amendments Nos. 21 to 24:
	Page 40, line 29, leave out paragraph 17.
	Page 41, line 22, at end insert—
	"(4A) For the purpose of deciding under this Schedule whether or not a person is included in a barred list IBB must not take account of relevant police information if the chief officer of the relevant police force thinks that it would not be in the interests of the prevention or detection of crime to disclose the information to the person.
	(4B) In sub-paragraph (4A) relevant police information is information which falls within sub-paragraph (3), whether it is obtained by IBB in pursuance of sub-paragraph (1)(c) or paragraph 19(2)."
	Page 42, line 21, after "child" insert "before the commencement of section 2."
	Page 42, line 28, at end insert—
	"(5) For the purpose of considering whether the criteria apply to an individual, the Secretary of State must, from time to time, examine records of convictions or cautions held for the use of police forces generally.
	(6) Sub-paragraph (5) does not apply to records of convictions or cautions relating to offences committed before such date as is prescribed."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 3 [Regulated Activity]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendments Nos. 25 to 29:
	Page 43, line 6, at end insert—
	"(3A) Each of the following, if carried out in England, is a regulated activity relating to children (without prejudice to whether it would be a regulated activity under the preceding provisions of this paragraph)—
	(a) providing early years childminding in respect of which a requirement to register arises by section 33(1) of the Childcare Act 2006 (requirement to register);
	(b) providing later years childminding in respect of which a requirement to register arises by section 52(1) of that Act (requirement to register);
	(c) providing early years childminding or later years childminding, if it is provided by a person who is registered by virtue of section 62(1) of that Act (voluntary registration of childminders);
	(d) providing later years childminding for a child who has attained the age of eight, if a requirement to register would arise in respect of that provision by section 52(1) of that Act if the child had not attained that age.
	(3B) Any expression used both in sub-paragraph (3A) and in Part 3 of the Childcare Act 2006 has the meaning given by that Act."
	Page 43, line 42, leave out "part of or"
	Page 43, line 45, leave out "part of or"
	Page 44, line 5, after "public" insert "electronic"
	Page 46, line 27, after "public" insert "electronic"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 5 [Amendments]:

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 30:
	Page 52, line 45, at end insert—
	"( ) under paragraph 1, 2, 6 or 7 of Schedule 2 to that Act (considering whether criteria prescribed for the purpose of that paragraph apply to an individual)."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Adonis: moved Amendment No. 31:
	After Schedule 5, insert the following new schedule—
	"Repeals
	
		
			  
			 Short title and chapter Extent of repeal 
			 Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c. 43) Sections 26 to 38" 
		
	
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	An amendment (privilege) made.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Adonis).
	On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	Politics in Northern Ireland over the latter part of the last century was dominated by what were once thought insurmountable differences and divisions. But, albeit slowly, the peace process moved forward. Such progress has occurred through a brave willingness of those across the political spectrum to acknowledge that the need for accommodation does not mean turning away from principle.
	This is a decisive moment in the Northern Ireland political process and a moment of promise: the promise of a better future through the restoration of locally accountable government in Northern Ireland. The rewards are plainly within reach, if that bravery can be demonstrated once again.
	Much of what was contested is now firmly agreed—most crucially, the principle of consent, the superiority of devolved government over direct rule and the necessity of fair and equitable power-sharing. There is agreement that Northern Ireland is served best when the police service has the whole community behind it because the whole community is in it. There is agreement that Northern Ireland must be free from the fear of paramilitary activity and criminality, and that the rule of law must apply. There is also agreement that common-sense north/south co-operation is of great mutual benefit. I have cited examples of disease control in food production and animals and things like that many times in this House; we have an example in the Bill, which I will come to shortly.
	The Government have clearly set out the path ahead. The Prime Minister has set 2006 as the year of progress for Northern Ireland. To that end, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Peter Hain, recalled the Assembly on 15 May with the express purpose of electing a First Minister and Deputy First Minister and establishing a power-sharing Executive. This was a vital stepping stone in the journey towards full restoration.
	Obviously, we are not yet at the point at which the parties are ready to form an Executive. That is why we have arranged for a preparation for government committee to be set up within the Assembly. Its initial task, in advance of intensive talks at the end of this month, will be to scope the work that the parties believe needs to be done to set up government again in Northern Ireland. We have also indicated that if there is cross-party consensus on changes to the Belfast agreement that would prove necessary prior to full restoration, the Government stand ready to legislate further.
	The current arrangements are obviously not sustainable in the face of long-term failure to elect a Northern Ireland government. That is why in the previous legislation—the Northern Ireland Act—an absolute deadline of 24 November has been set. It has been set in primary legislation, and if the clock strikes midnight on that day, that is it. There cannot be any last minute deal to fix it on the 25th. After that point, if we do not have an Executive, MLAs' salaries and allowances will be cancelled and devolution will be put on hold until a clear political will for devolution re-emerges. As the Prime Minister said,
	"we close the chapter or close the book",
	and, as we have said before, we would have to take a very serious look at the direct rule arrangements.
	But closing the book would be a poor second best. It is second best to have part-time, commuting direct-rule Ministers who cannot be hands-on. They have to be second best to locally elected politicians carrying out their responsibilities. Having been elected, they have a duty to do so. We will do all we can to facilitate dialogue between the parties to achieve restoration. We will not stand in their way. We have made it absolutely clear that we have no plan to delay restoration. Whether it is August, September or October, as soon as the parties are ready, we will facilitate the steps to restoration of devolved government. But I emphasise that it is for the parties themselves to take the final, crucial step towards power-sharing.
	The Bill, as is clear from its title, covers a number of policy objectives. For the most part, they have a single unifying theme, which is preparing Northern Ireland for the many and various challenges that lie ahead and ensuring that there are no legislative obstacles in the way of devolution. Chiefly, the Bill will allow for maximum flexibility in the arrangements for the future devolution of policing and justice functions to the Assembly. Ultimately, responsibility for policing and justice in Northern Ireland should lie with Northern Ireland Ministers accountable to a local Assembly elected by the people of Northern Ireland. That was envisaged in the Belfast agreement and the structure of the devolution settlement set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The British Government have repeated on many occasions our clear commitment to devolve those functions when the time is right. However, the Bill does not devolve policing and justice. Instead, it supports the framework we need to put in place to devolve policing and justice by order when, and not before, the circumstances are right to do so. The Bill strengthens the safeguards that apply to the future devolution of policing and justice, requiring the agreement of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and the parallel consent of unionist and nationalist Members of the Assembly before devolution can happen. Of course, the Government and Parliament would also have to agree.
	The Bill also provides some alternative departmental models from which the Assembly can choose the arrangements it wants to put in place to receive these new functions: whether to have one department or two, for instance. That decision will be a matter for the Assembly, though the Government will need to be convinced that the proposed arrangements are robust, workable and broadly supported by the parties. Finally, the Bill updates the framework of the 1998 Act to take account of some subsequent UK-wide developments, such as the introduction of the European arrest warrant for dealing with extradition between member states.
	The first part of the Bill deals with elections. There are a number of provisions concerned with the democratic process. The provisions on electoral registration and political donations are key to moving Northern Ireland forward. We want to modernise still further the registration arrangements in Northern Ireland, safeguarding the dramatic improvements in the accuracy of the register, but making sure that as many people as possible are registered to vote. In allowing us to do this, the registration clauses of the Bill go to the heart of increasing trust and engagement in the democratic process. The reforms to the rules on political donations will also work to increase public confidence by injecting greater openness into party funding and setting Northern Ireland firmly on the road to complete transparency.
	Similarly, the decommissioning clause is aimed at taking the peace process a step further. The full decommissioning of IRA weapons, independently verified, was, of course, welcome and highly significant. But there is much more to do. We want to see all loyalist weapons decommissioned and also those of dissident republicans. The Bill will ensure that the amnesty scheme stays in place for a further three years to facilitate that process.
	The Bill also contains important provisions dealing with energy, which are designed to help prepare Northern Ireland for the future. The creation of a single wholesale electricity market on the island of Ireland will bring consumer benefits, while also enhancing the security and diversity of electricity supplies for both north and south. The industry and business communities in Northern Ireland support this for the simple reason that a single market makes sound economic sense. It is also common sense. Renewable sources and sustainable development policies are particularly important for Northern Ireland where currently more than 99 per cent of primary energy requirements come from imported fossil fuels. The Bill will place a statutory duty on individual government departments and district councils to work in accordance with sustainable development principles.
	Let me highlight the remaining provisions of the Bill briefly, because we will have plenty of time to go over them in Committee. Clause 22 increases the threshold that the Northern Ireland Executive can borrow from the National Loans Fund, in effect, extending the Executive's overdraft limit. In particular, this will facilitate a massive increase in infrastructure investment.
	Clause 26 and Schedule 3 extend to Northern Ireland the investigatory powers of the DPP provisions of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. The creation of these new powers for Northern Ireland will provide investigators and prosecutors with additional weapons to tackle the serious ongoing problem of serious organised crime on a UK-wide basis.
	Clause 27 will provide corporation sole status to the office of the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. This will extend to Northern Ireland similar arrangements that already exist for chief police officers in Great Britain, so that any prosecution in relation to breaches of health and safety at work legislation will ordinarily be brought against the office of the chief constable rather than against the individual office holder.
	Finally, Clause 28 will place a duty on relevant Ministers to fill judicial vacancies in Northern Ireland in line with the arrangements in place in England and Wales, except where the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland agrees that a particular vacancy may remain unfilled. The aim is to remove any perception that Ministers could use the filling of judicial vacancies to place pressure on the judiciary and influence its independence.
	The reforms in the Bill will help to sustain a different and welcome environment in Northern Ireland. The picture is not perfect—no one is claiming that—but we have to make progress. The only way to make progress is by devolved government with locally elected politicians. The situation in Northern Ireland is transformed from where we were 10, or five, years ago. Considerable progress has been made in the past 12 months. We need to step up to the challenges and opportunities that this new environment presents. Political leaders in all walks of life need to show vision, courage and commitment to their own goals.
	Restoration of the devolved institutions remains the goal and Northern Ireland's politicians need to take the final steps forward. As I have said, it is their duty as elected politicians to seek to pull the levers of power. It is the only part of the world where people get elected and do not seem to want to adjust and pull the levers of power. To that extent, we want to make it easy for them. The Bill is part of that process. We want to restore devolved government on a stable and lasting basis, and we genuinely believe that this legislation will help to prepare the way. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Rooker.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for taking us through the details of this Bill with his usual clarity. I am delighted to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, to his first debate on Northern Ireland in your Lordships' House. I very much look forward to hearing from the noble Lord in his maiden speech.
	As the Minister made clear, this Bill deals with a wide range of issues, some of which we may stretch even further in Committee, that are important to the future of Northern Ireland, including electoral matters, party funding and the possible creation of an all-Ireland wholesale electricity market. We shall of course be able to examine each of these issues in detail in Committee, and I can assure the noble Lord that the Official Opposition will have some important amendments to table, especially on party funding and electoral registration.
	I intend to confine my comments to what I and the noble Lord consider to be the heart of the Bill and, at the same time, easily its most important element. Part 5 makes provisions for the devolution of policing and justice functions to a new Northern Ireland Executive. It does not bring about devolution, nor does it contain the mechanism for triggering it. As I understand it, that is set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, under which policing and justice are reserved matters. Under that Act they can only become "transferred" by order of the Secretary of State following a resolution of the Assembly passed on a cross-community vote, as clearly outlined by the Minister today.
	That procedure remains unaffected by this Bill, which I welcome. In no circumstances should policing and justice become devolved unless and until the Assembly—with cross-community support—requests it. That will itself only be possible once the Northern Ireland parties involved in the current negotiations have agreed on what is known in the current jargon as the "modalities", including institutional models. Indeed, in our view this is one of the issues on which the success of the current initiative ultimately hinges.
	The Bill is intended to facilitate devolution by enabling the Executive to put in place arrangements for ministerial appointments to a new department, or departments, of policing and justice without the need for further primary legislation to amend the 1998 Act. It is therefore a small change but, in the wider scheme of things, of potentially huge significance.
	I accept that the eventual devolution of policing and justice was clearly envisaged in the Belfast agreement and endorsed by the Patten commission. It has subsequently been reiterated in the 2003 British/Irish joint declaration, and in the proposals for a comprehensive agreement published by the British and Irish Governments in December 2004. In addition, it is accepted, admittedly with varying degrees of enthusiasm, by all the main Northern Ireland parties—including, I understand, by the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, when he served as First Minister in the Assembly.
	The Conservative Party, too, is supportive in principle of devolving policing and justice, but—and I suspect that this point will be strongly shared by noble Lords from Northern Ireland, most of whom sadly are unable to be here this evening at this late hour—it can only happen when the circumstances are right and with the strongest possible safeguards. Essentially, that means that the Assembly must have shown itself to be stable and durable and—crucially—when all political parties in Northern Ireland that aspire to serve in the Executive give their unequivocal support to the police and the criminal justice system.
	That is clearly not the case today. As the US Special Envoy, Mitchell Reiss, has made clear, Sinn Fein remains the only political party in western Europe that still refuses to support the police. It does not recognise the courts. As recently as the McCartney murder only last year, we have seen how Sinn Fein/IRA manages to place an iron grip around the communities in which it operates to thwart police investigations. The graffiti along the Short Strand area of east Belfast said it all: "Whatever you say, say nothing". Most recently, the president of Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams, described a certain notorious figure in South Armagh, whose farm was the subject of a joint PSNI/Garda operation, as,
	"not a criminal but a good republican who supports the peace process".
	The clear implication remains that any activity sanctioned by the republican leadership, or the so-called IRA Army Council, does not constitute a crime.
	It is against the background of such events that unionists are being asked to consider the possibility of a Sinn Fein Minister of Policing and Justice, when most of their experiences of Sinn Fein justice have been the bomb, the bullet and the baseball bat. The onus is on Sinn Fein to change.
	The Independent Monitoring Commission, in paragraph 2.19 of its most recent report, stated its view that the Sinn Fein
	"leadership has accepted the need to engage in policing if it is to achieve its aim of devolution of policing and justice to an Assembly and Executive in Northern Ireland".
	But it went on to say that:
	"It has not however yet determined how this might be delivered. The issue is still very controversial on the ground and has not been resolved to date within PIRA despite robust discussion".
	Until that matter is resolved, there can be no question of policing and justice being devolved. It would simply not be accepted by the people who live there and it would certainly not pass a cross-community vote in the Assembly.
	Let me make one thing very clear. Supporting the police should not be equated with taking up seats on the Northern Ireland Policing Board and the district policing partnerships. It requires more than that; it requires an ideological shift, in which republicans urge people within their communities to work with the police, to report crime to the police and to join the police. There can be no equivocation about this as far as my party is concerned.
	There are three further points. First, any form of devolution of policing and justice must preserve fully the operational independence of the Chief Constable and the basic tripartite structure of policing as it exists throughout the United Kingdom. There can be no question of ever going back to a situation such as existed in Northern Ireland prior to 1970 when the Minister of Home Affairs could effectively direct the police.
	Secondly, the independence of the judiciary must be upheld by all Ministers. For that reason, I can see no reason why the Government in the other place rejected our amendments making it a requirement of holding office in the Executive for a Minister to pledge to support the police and uphold the rule of law. I give notice now to the Government that this is an issue to which we shall want to return and on which we may well want to test the opinion of this House at a later stage.
	Thirdly, we agree with the Government and the Patten commission that national security and intelligence matters must not be devolved but must be the responsibility of the Security Service—MI5—and politically of the United Kingdom Government at Westminster—this Government.
	I am firmly of the view that resolving the policing issue is absolutely fundamental if the current attempt to restore devolution to Northern Ireland stands any chance of success by the Government's target date of 24 November. We wish that initiative well. We want to see a proper, fully functioning devolved government in Northern Ireland that is accountable to the electorate. But it will not happen if we kid ourselves into thinking that we can have Ministers who do not back the police.
	Furthermore, although the small loyalist parties will not be in a position to qualify for the ministerial positions due to their lack of support, it should not absolve them of their responsibilities to persuade the loyalist paramilitaries to end their criminal activities and disarm. Their activities are both abhorrent and a blight on their communities.
	The Bill is intended to encourage republicans to support the police by facilitating the devolution of policing and justice. The proposals for a comprehensive agreement in December 2004 made clear that the Government envisaged the process beginning once the legislation was given Royal Assent. I should be grateful if, during his winding-up speech, the Minister would reaffirm that that is the Government's clear understanding of the Sinn Fein position.
	There are many other issues in the Bill that we will address in Committee. In principle, we do not have any major problems but, as so often, the devil may be in the detail. There are certainly a number of issues which we shall want to address as the Bill proceeds about which I have not spoken tonight.
	In principle, we wish the Bill well and support the process.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for introducing the Bill and welcome the noble Lord, Lord Trimble. I am sure that his experience in Northern Ireland will greatly enhance our deliberations when we discuss the business of Northern Ireland in this House.
	Broadly speaking, we welcome the Bill. We support the principles behind it. We have some concern about the intention in Clause 1 to introduce anonymous registration in Northern Ireland to mirror Clause 10 of the Electoral Administration Bill. That would allow an elector to register anonymously if he feared that his safety or that of another person in his home was at risk if he were identifiable from the electoral register. Given the changing threat of terrorism in Northern Ireland, we feel that the number of people for whom that provision may be necessary will be small and will decrease over time. We are concerned about how the Government intend to achieve that. The clause allows the Secretary of State, through an Order in Council, to achieve anonymous registration. In another place, the Minister gave some explanation of why it was not possible simply to extend the current provisions of the Electoral Administration Bill to Northern Ireland. We are concerned that Northern Ireland will not be able to benefit from that proposal at the same time as people in England and Wales. Can the Minister tell the House when the Government intend to lay the Order in Council before Parliament?
	We are very disappointed at the Government's intention to abolish the annual canvass, which was introduced in the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. The annual canvass has proven to be successful in Northern Ireland. The introduction of individual registration with personal identifiers in Northern Ireland has led to a much more accurate and robust electoral register than those compiled under the system of household registration. Currently, 1,162,492 people are on the register, which is an estimated 91 per cent of the voting-aged population. We understand the Government's concern at the continued decline in the number of people registering. We must ensure that the procedures are not so onerous as to discourage people from registering; but we fear that by extending the period of time between canvasses to 10 years, the Government have back-pedalled far too far.
	Can the Minister explain why a period of 10 years was chosen? Would it not be more sensible to have a shorter period of, say, four years, to ensure that the registers are comprehensive in advance of Assembly elections? The system of individual registration has worked in Northern Ireland; it would be wrong to undermine it now.
	We are also most disappointed by the provisions of Part 3. Although that part aligns donations in Northern Ireland more closely with those in England, Scotland and Wales, it does not achieve full transparency. Northern Ireland political parties and regulated donees will continue to be exempt from the full donation controls until October 2007, after which they will be required to comply with most of Part 4 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. From November 2007 until 2010, the measures will require Northern Ireland parties only to submit donation returns to the Electoral Commission confidentially.
	We fully appreciate that concerns still remain about the publication of the names of donors in Northern Ireland and their safety. The new measures are a step in the right direction, but can the Minister guarantee that full disclosure will be achieved by 2010? We are still concerned about extending the categories of permissible donors. In 2000, when the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act was passing through Parliament, we recognised that, in the absence of any similar legislation in the Republic of Ireland, it would be somewhat ineffective to include Northern Ireland in the ban on receiving foreign donations, as parties that operated on an all-Ireland basis could receive such donations through their offices in the Republic. We agreed to the exemption of Northern Ireland from those provisions on the express condition that the Government would urgently seek to persuade the Government of Ireland to introduce similar legislation, or to find some way to exclude parties that also operate in Northern Ireland from their funding arrangements.
	We are still unclear about the funding arrangements in the Republic, and I should be grateful if the Minister could explain them for the benefit of the House. After all, given the public concern over party donations in Great Britain, it is difficult to understand why Northern Ireland parties are to be excused from similar scrutiny. The Electoral Commission also has concerns about the provisions. Its view is that:
	"it is difficult to achieve openness and transparency with such a regime".
	The commission has stated that it would like the regime to be clarified in the Bill and has accordingly asked for a clear definition of the acceptable tests of Irish citizenship so that recipients of donations can check the permissibility of donors. Will the Minister take on board those concerns and accordingly table amendments in Committee?
	I now turn to Part 4, which deals with arrangements for the devolution of policing and justice matters to the Assembly. We Liberal Democrats are a devolutionary party. It has been our party policy for a number of years to devolve those functions to the Assembly. We welcome the clauses that will enable policing and justice arrangements to be devolved in any form that the Assembly chooses. We are further pleased about the reassurances that the Government gave in another place about how and when such functions will be devolved.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, it is vital that such functions are transferred only when the Assembly is stable and we can be confident that it will remain so for the long-term. However, we have some concerns about the detail of how nominations to that ministerial office will occur. We will table amendments in Committee to clarify the situation.
	Clause 25, which was introduced on Report in another place, places a duty on public authorities to act in a way that contributes to the achievement of sustainable development. We welcome that provision; it is an aim that we support. However, another duty should be placed on public authorities. That is to act in a way that contributes to the achievement of the aims of A Shared Future. We welcome the Government's publication of the first triennial action plan—it is a start—but we were disappointed that, although the Government have been ambitious in their environmental aims, they seem not to have been so ambitious as to promote sharing over separation in every department.
	I am most grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made reference to the progress that we hope to be achieved in the negotiations between the Northern Ireland parties and the two Governments about the restoration of an Executive. After all, that is central to some of the provisions of the Bill. Progress is important because it will inform the attitude of those of us on these Benches to the variety of orders that will be laid before the House during the next few weeks.
	I conclude by saying that I am aware that the usual channels arranged the time for this debate, but it is very unfortunate that we have a Second Reading debate on these important issues so late in the evening. It happens too frequently that Northern Ireland business is given the fag-end of the day, especially on Second Reading. I hope that, in future, we contrive to give greater priority to such legislation.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, the Bill reminds me of the aftermath of a children's party, when one casually sweeps up the crumbs that litter the floor, because that is what we have been asked to deal with today. The Bill is a mishmash of trivia, with a few potential gems hidden or, more likely, lost among the dross. I have little doubt that I will be told that here is a scarce commodity—primary legislation for Northern Ireland. I must pre-empt that justification with a question: why, for example, can I not expect the same when the educational future of our children for the next 40 years is to be jeopardised by some sort of government ideology that is rejected by 90 per cent of Northern Ireland's population? While this Government struggle to amend the damage they have done to education in England and Wales, they prepare to impose the same flawed system on Northern Ireland without any recognition that we comprise a mainly rural community that is to have a mainly urban experiment imposed on us.
	I raise this issue on the basis that, increasingly, Northern Ireland is governed in a manner that piles chaos on pandemonium, where there is a lack of planning for change and where, therefore, change becomes demolition rather than construction. On 5 July 2004, I asked the Government,
	"whether, in pursuance of the objectives of the Costello report on post-primary education in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Office has now undertaken and completed an infrastructural audit of current educational facilities outside the Greater Belfast area; if so, what that audit has indicated are (a) the estimated average hours per week that pupils and teachers will spend travelling between schools; and (b) the estimated costs per annum of providing transport and supervisory support during the first 10 years of education; and when any such audit will be made public".—[Official Report, 30/6/05; col. WA 44-5.]
	I was told that there has been no such audit. I asked a similar question on 30 June 2005 and I was given the same answer. Would any business restructure itself without planning? The education of our children must surely be someone's business. I got around to begging in November 2005 when I asked the Government,
	"whether they will reconsider their decision not to cost the objectives contained in the Costello report on post-primary education in Northern Ireland",
	only to be told:
	"The arrangements necessary to ensure that all pupils have access to the range of academic and vocational courses under the new curricular entitlement framework will be developed locally by schools and colleges working together. It is not possible to assess the associated costs at this stage, but the position will be kept under review as new arrangements are developed".—[Official Report, 30/11/05; col. WA 45.]
	No one has given me any information about a bottomless purse that precludes planning. I suggest that no planning means bad government, and that bad government means an irresponsible society. It is not often one has the opportunity to speak across such a miscellaneous range of subjects, so I intend to make the most of it. It really does not matter what is in this Bill—we will deal with that in Committee. But what else is left out?
	Let me move to restorative justice. There has naturally been a tendency for the voids left by terrorism to be filled by criminality, and hence it is important that the Government plan for any restorative justice programme that may emerge. Part 4 of the Bill would have presented an ideal opportunity. I recall the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, of Lisnagarvey—whom I too welcome to the House tonight—discussing with Superintendent Stephen White of the RUC and a bevy of bureaucrats a programme for restorative justice that they had worked on for literally months. That was around the time of the 1998 Belfast agreement. Yet I recently became aware of programmes that excluded the police, so on 9 March 2006 I asked the Government:
	"Whether they have made an assessment of whether restorative justice schemes are operating outside the scope of police supervision and participation in republican areas of Belfast".
	I asked exactly the same question about loyalist areas of Belfast. Finally, I asked:
	"Whether they have made an assessment of how many restorative justice schemes in Northern Ireland (a) have full police participation, and (b) are known to operate as community schemes that preclude police participation".
	The Government responded that they had,
	"set out the standards and safeguards that should be observed in the draft guidelines that were published for consultation on 5 December. These guidelines make clear that schemes—which are currently privately funded and unregulated—should have an acceptable and appropriate relationship with the criminal justice system including the police".
	What about all the work done in the late 1990s? I set about searching for those guidelines, but the Northern Ireland Office does not have them, and the Police Service of Northern Ireland tells me that it has searched 100,000 documents without success. Is anyone interested in what has happened, unregulated for the intervening eight or nine years? It has not been good. Again, I asked the Government:
	"Whether it is illegal to impose a restorative justice scheme which precludes police participation; and, if so, what is the penalty for such an offence".
	The answer was that,
	"As with all criminal offences or potential criminal offences, it would be for the PSNI, the Public Prosecution Service and the courts, fulfilling their proper statutory roles, to determine whether any aspect of the operation of a community-based restorative justice scheme is in breach of the law".
	Is that not careless? Apart from that, it is a prime example of passing the buck. Do we sack the Chief Constable, the Director of Public Prosecutions or some senior civil servant when not only do we not have proper legislation, but we cannot even find the study and recommendations that were laboriously produced almost eight years ago? Yet planning began only in December 2005, presumably because I raised the issue.
	It gets worse. I asked:
	"What are the lines of accountability in respect of restorative justice schemes in Northern Ireland; and whether, in the event that a case proves unsuitable for resolution by this means, any court referral is subsequently precluded".
	You would think that might have evoked an answer, but the answer that came was:
	"Community-based restorative justice schemes are currently privately funded, voluntary organisations operating in an unregulated fashion. In future the Government would like to see all such schemes working within the mainstream criminal justice system. To this end, the Government are seeking to ensure that the proper standards and safeguards are observed, and published draft guidelines for consultation on 5 December".—[Official Report, 9/3/06; col. WA 168.]
	These guidelines make it clear that the Public Prosecution Service is the only body with responsibility for deciding how offences should be dealt with in accordance with the test for prosecution. Why is that legislation not here today? Why is it not included in the Bill? It is the same with the way in which our children with autistic spectrum disorder have been neglected, although I am happy to report one potentially good-news story. Following a meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and subsequently with Secretary of State Hain, I have found a new willingness to help progress the good work of Autism Northern Ireland which it has been doing for 16 frustrating years. I am a vice-president of Autism Northern Ireland and I am grateful. At this stage, many of us regret the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is no longer an integral part of the Northern Ireland Office and is not with us to the extent he has been in the past. I thank him for the contribution he has made.
	However, I caution the Government that a clever answer is not always a good answer. They announced that multidisciplinary teams are in place to tackle the huge backlog on assessments of children suspected of being on the autistic spectrum—that is some 668 youngsters who have been waiting for anything up to 35 months—but they are still unable to predict when the backlog will be reduced. That smacks of bureaucratic evasion rather than ministerial control and planning. I will continue to probe this issue in detail, and by now I hope that my questions belie my appearance. I am not some redundant sheepdog, I am still a terrier.
	Indeed, I have observed that when the Government are unable to justify an issue in Northern Ireland, they hide. I cannot imagine the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, hiding, but I fear that his civil servants try to lead him and his colleagues into the impenetrable bush, as they have done with questions I have posed about the operation of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, another subject not mentioned tonight. Initially I got answers regarding the Police Ombudsman, but when these proved to be too revealing in respect of accountability and real effectiveness, I was told I had to write to the ombudsman as the Government have no rights in that domain. That just cannot be true. Do we really condone anarchy in any form? Do we condone it when we know that the police are currently investigating the possible "tweaking" of evidence by members of the Police Ombudsman's office? I will not go into details, although I could, but I have sat in court and seen police officers who have had to wait for up to four years for justice. That is exploitation, not justice. A recent Parliamentary Answer shows that the last three extended jury trials brought under the aegis of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland all ended in not guilty verdicts. Does anyone think that I will get the answer I am entitled to under a system where I have to write to the Police Ombudsman's office, or is the most persecuted element within our society to be our police officers? What motivates the Government to allow this to happen?
	We all want to see a devolved government in Northern Ireland, but will a Bill of this multi-faceted nature cure a single one of the ills from which we currently suffer, or will it put to right a single injustice? Add to that the Order in Council approach to the most fundamental elements of our society functions and ask whether it is a fair and reasonable basis on which I and others like me are to be asked to recover from 35 years of perversity, corruption and violence.
	I conclude with one statistic to underline how the Government perform in respect of health. Over the past year to March, the total number of inpatients and day cases waiting has decreased by almost 6,000 from 47,300 to 41,495. Is that success? The number of people waiting for a first outpatient appointment has increased by almost 14,000 to over 181,000, and all this in a community of 1.7 million. Planning, what planning? Who decided that this should be the way forward? Could it possibly have been planned like that, and if so by whom—Minister or administrator?
	This mishmash may do little harm and we will deal with it in Committee, but nothing will motivate Ulstermen and women to overcome their ingrained suspicions of each other and take on the responsibility of devolution if all their sense of what is right has been devalued, their dreams of normality dismantled, and their confidence in democracy destroyed. On such an ill-planned foundation nothing enduring can be built. Progress is not based on a wish list, but may be achieved by better planning than is currently evident.

Lord Trimble: My Lords, I feel that I should say a few words in explanation of the haste with which I am making this speech. There are two reasons. The first is that, as my noble friend Lord Maginnis has pointed out, a number of extremely important issues concerning Northern Ireland are coming up in which I wish to participate fully. But there is a second and more trivial reason, which is that I could not resist the temptation of repeating in this House my record in another place, where I made my maiden speech the day after I took my seat. Having said that, may I say that I am delighted to be here and that I have been quite overwhelmed by the warmth and kindness so many have extended to me on my arrival? There is no doubt that this is a kinder, gentler place.
	I have no doubt, however, of the wealth of talent and experience that exists collectively among your Lordships, of the opportunities here to influence the public debate and, on occasions, to make a real change to the legislation that comes before us. I had the pleasure of sitting through that happening earlier this evening. Of course it is not entirely the fault of colleagues in another place that Parliament has become less effective. Big majorities are not good for Parliament, and the way in which the number and the range of issues in public debate have diminished has also had an effect. Changes in procedures have tipped the balance against effective scrutiny. Here I am thinking particularly of automatic guillotines and the changed hours of sitting that have taken place elsewhere. All that has made the work of this House more significant and I look forward to participating in debates and votes that really matter.
	Tonight we are considering the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. There are so many matters in it on which one could comment, many of them mentioned by other noble Lords, but I should like to focus on one main issue and to raise a query on another. The query relates to a disturbing story in the press yesterday with regard to political fund raising. The story suggested that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is pressing the US Government to allow leading members of Sinn Fein to raise funds in the United States. If this is true, it would undermine the admirable position that the United States Government have adopted. It would also be contrary to the basic principles of the 2000 Act on political donations. I hope that in his reply the Minister will be able to comment on this matter.
	The main issue I wish to touch on has been raised already—that is, the question of devolution. This is clearly still the Government's policy, as evidenced by this Bill, the speech we have heard today and the current recall of the Assembly at Stormont. In principle, I welcome the recall. Giving politicians a status as elected Assembly Members without also giving them responsibilities is bad in principle and bad in practice. In saying that, I make no reflection on individual Assembly Members, of which I am one. But the existence of a notional Assembly which discharges no function could not be continued.
	The problem comes with the way in which one defines the objectives and their priorities at the moment. Is the primary objective to re-establish an Executive—preferably on an inclusive basis—or is the objective to have in Northern Ireland a society which functions normally? Eight years ago we began what we hoped would be a fairly rapid transition to normality and we created an inclusive Executive to facilitate and accelerate that transition. Enormous progress was made. But it is equally clear that the transition was not and still has not been completed.
	It was in October 2002 that the Prime Minister, in what is probably still the best speech he has made on the matter, called for the completion of that transition. The chief outstanding matter, of course, is policing. What is outstanding is not the devolution of policing—which was scarcely mentioned in the Belfast agreement back in April 1998—but the acceptance of the present policing arrangements, which have been put in place with much heart-searching and no little amount of pain to unionists and the police family in the years since 1998, and that acceptance has been clearly demonstrated by real support for the police.
	I hope leaders of the republican movement realise the need to move rapidly and decisively on this issue. I hope they recall the promise they made to my party in May 2000 when they said that they would act,
	"in a way that would maximise public confidence".
	I think they know that the great failing in the years after that date was in not building that confidence in those with whom they must have wanted to build a relationship.
	I hope the Government are holding clearly to the principles set out in the Belfast harbour office speech back in 2002 and that their priority is to put in place a normally functioning society in Northern Ireland as a means to create an inclusive administration which can then, perhaps at a later date, enhance devolution in the way that this Bill foreshadows.
	I put matters in this way not to create more obstacles—for I have in recent years put in a huge effort to see all the main sections of our society working together, and that is still my aim—but because I know the problems and I want to see them overcome. I know how important it is to stick clearly to the fundamental principles of the agreement, which are in turn the basic principles of democracy, non-violence and social cohesion.

Lord Laird: My Lords, it is a great privilege for me to follow the outstanding maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, who was for many years my political leader. He led the Ulster Unionist Party and Ulster through important and eventful times. I am strongly of the view that the noble Lord played a vital role in the peace process but was let down by others in the operation of the agreement.
	The noble Lord, Lord Trimble, is well known throughout the world. He was a Member of the other place for 15 years. In 1998, he was awarded the Nobel peace prize, along with John Hume. In 1999 he became Northern Ireland's First Minister, a position he held off and on for three years. To date, he has been the only First Minister. I am confident that the noble Lord will be a major asset to your Lordships' House and I look forward with other noble Lords to his many contributions.
	I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Bill, which is clearly important if there is to be any serious attempt to bring devolved government to Northern Ireland. I acknowledge the work of the Government in attempting to start the Assembly. The task is most definitely uphill. This is not 1999—things have moved on—and the Belfast agreement is no longer a fresh document. We have witnessed the failure to implement the agreement by both Sinn Fein and the Irish Government. There is a resultant lack of sympathy for the agreement within the unionist community. Trust has all but gone—and without it there is no hope of devolution as per the agreement. Perhaps we unionists are wiser and more careful people now. Certainly, those of us who tried to make the agreement work and to build trust were let down time and time again by the Northern Ireland Office and its supporters in local departments.
	The whole machinery of cross-border bodies, in which I have a close interest, has not produced anything to the betterment of the unionist population—quite the opposite. Let us take as an example Intertrade Ireland, a body of which few have heard and which consumes public funds without result. In the top four grades of management of the body, Protestant employees hold only 15 per cent of the posts. In the top two grades, no posts at all are held by Protestants. This is bad enough, but the remaining few Protestants have now complained to the Secretary of State that they are under pressure to leave.
	Much of this Bill is about the transfer of policing and justice to a devolved Assembly. The House will not be surprised to learn that considerable concern is felt about the idea of having a Sinn Fein MLA in charge of anything in the area of policing and justice.
	The republican campaign to blacken the name of the loyal order stands as a monument to its sectarian, mono-cultural approach. Before the 1990s, loyal order parades, which are part of the unionist tradition, were not the focus of violent campaigns on the street or elsewhere. It is interesting to note that only four Orange halls were attacked and destroyed from 1969 to 1989. From 1990 to date, despite the ceasefire and the peace process, 240 halls have been destroyed.
	The leaders of all the loyal orders deserve much credit for their leadership in difficult times and for keeping their institutions together in a positive way. I praise in particular the historic meeting this week between the leadership of the Orange Order, the Independent Orange Order and the Royal Black Institution and the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church. I understand that to have been a most successful meeting, and it should be supported by all right-thinking people.
	I support the section in the Bill which deals with sustainable development, but I urge further action. I ask the Government to include in the provisions a requirement for public authorities to adopt the concept of fair trade. Fair trade guarantees a better deal for workers and farmers in poor countries around the world. By becoming the world's first fair trade country, Northern Ireland would show that it is supporting a progressive alternative and promoting the interest of workers and farmers across the world—a first for Northern Ireland. Fair trade ensures a better deal for workers and small-scale farmers in poor countries. Farmers are paid a just and stable price for their crops, and workers are guaranteed decent and safe working conditions and fair wages. Fair trade producers also receive an additional premium that can be invested in social projects or business development. Across the Province, thousands of individuals, organisations and business are already choosing to use or sell fair trade. In July 2005, Belfast became the first fair trade city. Queen's University became the country's first fair trade university in February 2006. Ballymoney Borough Council is working towards fair trade status. The Assembly Commission at Stormont has adopted a fair trade policy and churches across the country have become fair trade churches.
	In the Government's attempts to restart the Executive, Ministers should remember that trying to force anyone to do anything against their will in Ulster is totally counter-productive. Adding to the resolve of the majority is any suggestion of a secret deal done with Sinn Fein. Such a cloud hangs over the Government's proposal for a national stadium at the Maze. This project, with which HMG seem determined to continue, has no support outside the Maze area, and that includes the three major sporting organisations. Belfast City Council is proposing a stadium in the city and Linfield Football Club has been promised more funding to upgrade Windsor Park, yet the Government seem determined to press ahead with the ill-thought-out and unpopular proposal to build a massive stadium, including a celebration of terrorism in the form of a preserved part of the Maze prison, at public expense. This white elephant will soak up money and be a blister on the face of the Province.
	The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure in Belfast has been spinning against me in relation to the Maze project, even about the contents of my remarks tonight. DCAL, which is not noted for activity which would be fair to the non-Irish community, has a record of spinning against me. Its problem is that I know the names of those involved and how they operate. If they do not stop and return to being fair, even-handed civil servants, I will name them in your Lordships' House.
	The Bill includes much about policing. We are told about the need for a new start for our police service. In the changed circumstances, there is something in that argument. A new start means a new state-of-the-art policing college, or so we were told. The present accommodation is totally inadequate. Now we have been informed by HMG that the proposal for a new college in Cookstown is too expensive and that the state-of-the-art college may not be built.
	In the Northern Ireland Grand Committee of 6 February 2003, the then Minister in charge of policing said:
	"I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my reassurance that on Patten's recommendations regarding the policing college, resources are not the issue".—[Official Report, Commons Northern Ireland Grand Committee, 6/2/03; col. 5.]
	The Government have tried to suggest that the cost of the new college has become too much without their knowledge and so can no longer be supported. Yet at page 89 of the annual report of the Office of the Oversight Commissioner, which I received only yesterday, reference is made to a tripartite project board, which includes the police service, the Policing Board and the Government—so HMG did know. How is it that the Government have plenty of funding to supply to the Maze project but only a limited amount when it comes to a new police college for a new beginning? What is the average citizen of Northern Ireland to make of that? What Sinn Fein/IRA wants, it gets, and the facts are distorted to suit the case, but what the police require is a problem, and again the facts are distorted—Alice in Wonderland, indeed.
	I shall return to a number of these issues with appropriate amendments in Committee.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, on his excellent maiden speech and his contribution to this Northern Ireland debate. I am only sorry that, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, said, because of the timing of the debate, we have only 10 noble Lords present to hear that speech and to discuss the affairs of Northern Ireland. I hope that those who are responsible for the business of the House will address that issue as we discuss the Bill in the months ahead.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for introducing the Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, I am sorry that he is leaving Northern Ireland. He called a spade a spade. Whether you dug with the left foot or the right foot, he certainly knew what a spade was. That is what we like in Northern Ireland—people who are frank and to the point.
	I wish to comment on one or two issues that were mentioned, and one or two that were not. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, referred to what the Belfast agreement had achieved and to the Bill's objectives. He mentioned the principle of consent, but he did not really spell it out. However, the Belfast agreement spelt it out—that Northern Ireland's constitutional position is as part of the United Kingdom, which means that it is British, and that that cannot be changed without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. It is always important for the Government to give that reassurance to the people of Northern Ireland and not to slip over it quickly by simply saying that the principle of consent existed.
	The noble Lord stressed the importance of north-south co-operation and, of course, he is right, but he totally avoided—as did the Secretary of State at Second Reading in the other place—mentioning that there was a third strand in the Belfast agreement; namely, east-west arrangements. That was what we unionists wanted. The nationalists wanted north-south arrangements, but why does the noble Lord ignore what the unionists wanted, even though it was written into the Belfast agreement? I hope that he will underline the importance of further east-west co-operation in the months ahead.
	As regards strand one, the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, mentioned that the two Governments wanted to see devolution. We should be very careful about the way we express that. There were three strands to the Belfast agreement. Strand one was about devolution; strand two was about north-south arrangements; and strand three was about east-west arrangements. In strand one the Dublin Government were excluded from all talks. They should not at this stage become involved in anything to do with the creation of devolution for Northern Ireland at Stormont. That must be underlined by all parties if we are going to succeed.
	Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to the full decommissioning of IRA arms. We all accept—and it is good news—that there was substantial decommissioning, but no one has yet been able to confirm that there was full decommissioning. Indeed, the latest report of the Independent Monitoring Commission suggested that there may still be some arms in the hands of members of the Provisional IRA.
	I agreed with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said about policing but I must remind him that the Minister of Home Affairs at Stormont did not run the police. That was an unfortunate contribution on behalf of the Conservative Party. I assure the noble Lord, as a former Minister of Home Affairs, that I had no say in the day-to-day running of the Royal Ulster Constabulary; that was a matter for the Inspector General, who was subsequently retitled the Chief Constable. I hope that the Conservatives will not repeat such an error.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that contribution and withdraw what I said.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, I appreciate that generous contribution by the noble Lord.
	On the issue of electricity, of course I agree with north-south co-operation, and I do so on many aspects; for example, the environment and animal health. There must be north-south co-operation on all those issues. But when it comes to energy and electricity we do not want a Sinn Fein/ourselves alone isolated Irish—Northern Irish, southern Irish—arrangement. The energy arrangements must be wider; they must be integrated into the British Isles and in fact they must be integrated into a wider Europe. So let us not just talk about north-south energy arrangements but about wider energy arrangements.
	The noble Lord, Lord Laird, has once again, unfortunately, raised some limited Belfast opposition to the proposed stadium at the Maze. Once again, I place on record that the proposed stadium at the Maze is supported by the Ulster branch of the Irish Rugby Football Union, by the Irish Football Association, and by the GAA. To get all three to agree to it is a great achievement. I fear that the rearguard opposition organised by some people on Belfast City Council may result in Northern Ireland losing the funding for a new stadium. We need a good stadium in Northern Ireland.

Lord Laird: My Lords, if the Irish Rugby Football Union, the Irish Football Association and the GAA support the proposed new stadium at the Maze, is it possible to see the documentation in which they say that they support it? I have never seen that documentation. In fact, the word from the Irish Football Association is that it does not support the stadium, but it is going along with the project at this time because it owes money to Windsor Park. It is hard to see how the GAA is going to have any games in Northern Ireland when it can make more money having games either in Croke Park or Clones. The rugby people simply say that they want nothing to do with it. I also put on record that the proposal is not supported by the leadership of the four parties. The councillors of all parties on Belfast City Council are unanimous that they want Northern Ireland's national stadium to be in the city.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Laird, that the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, has only a total of four minutes to speak. Therefore, interventions on speakers in the gap are really quite unreasonable.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, I realise that it was a mistake to give way.
	Finally, I caution people in Northern Ireland not at this late stage to start opposing the stadium, because it is a wonderful proposal. Of course the GAA raises a lot of money in Dublin, but would it not be nice to see it raising money in Northern Ireland instead? The Irish Football Association has welcomed it, and the Irish Rugby Football Union has welcomed it. The proposed site has great access on the motorway for all the people of Northern Ireland, not just Belfast, but from the west, the north and the south. I hope that the opposition will be reduced so that we can get the money and get the stadium built before the Olympic Games.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I will just comment that four minutes in Northern Ireland is always slightly longer than it is anywhere else.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: Unfortunately, my Lords.
	I, too, welcome the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, to our Northern Ireland debates; I am sure that he will find them refreshing. I congratulate him on an excellent and measured maiden speech, and we on these Benches look forward very much to hearing from him on future occasions.
	Although the Bill covers a lot of ground, as we have heard from noble Lords, I reiterate that we welcome it and we broadly support its principles. The introduction of anonymous registration, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton, gives us some concern. Again, I hope that it will not be necessary to introduce it for too many people. This measure, and others, will be brought into force by the laying of an order. As the Minister said at the outset, we look forward so much to the day when the Assembly will deal with all these matters. It might have been better to include Northern Ireland in the Electoral Administration Bill, which has just passed through your Lordships' House, instead of having to do all this by order, once again bringing Northern Ireland in as a sort of afterthought. Can the Minister tell us the reasoning behind that?
	Northern Ireland has benefited from individual registration with personal identifiers, which has proved much more robust than the previous system of household registration. However, how to encourage more people into voting will be a problem for us all to address. The 10 years proposed between canvasses is far too long, especially as the annual canvass has proved so successful, a point made by my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton.
	We are very disappointed on Part 3, which is on donation controls. It is understandable that concerns exist, and will probably do so for some time, around the publication of donors in Northern Ireland, but the Bill still does not achieve full transparency, which is regrettable. The various parties in Northern Ireland will be exempt, as we have heard, from full donation controls until October 2007, and then there is the interim period between 2007 and 2010 when measures will allow the parties to submit their donation returns in confidence. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House that full disclosure will be achieved by 2010, as asked for by my noble friend.
	On Clause 12, the new insertion of special provision in connection with Northern Ireland, I simply say that if we cannot encourage the same legislation in the Republic of Ireland, how do the Government believe that putting a ban on receiving foreign donations in Northern Ireland will work? Unless and until we can agree comparable legislation across borders, that provision is likely to be meaningless. Openness and transparency is so important a principle to embed into this sort of legislation, and I hope that the Minister will address concerns of noble Lords on this matter, if not this evening then perhaps during further stages on the Bill.
	Part 4, which is on devolution of policing and justice matters to the Assembly, is certainly something that these Benches support. During the passage of the Bill in the other place, the Government gave reassurances about how and when such functions would be devolved. It would be very helpful if the Minister were able to repeat them here in such a manner, for completeness. Such transfer of these matters can clearly take place only when the Assembly is running properly and confidence is being restored on a genuine basis. Perhaps the Minister can give us some idea about how the person nominated to be head of the department will be chosen. The Explanatory Notes from paragraph 75 onwards relating to the issue are not terribly clear to me. There appear to be three possible options for choosing the person to head the department, and it is rather confusing and complex, notwithstanding the Minister's explanation. As my noble friend intimated, perhaps amendments need to be tabled at a later stage to tease out the detail. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, made strong representation on the devolution of policing, and I am sure that further examination of that part of the Bill will be a major part of our deliberations in Committee.
	Part 5 contains further miscellaneous provisions, in a miscellaneous provisions Bill—an extension of the amnesty period for arms decommissioning to 2010, an enormous increase in the limit of loans applicable to the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland, and suddenly the emergence of a single wholesale electricity market provision for the whole island of Ireland. It is quite a collection of disparate policy objectives. We support the energy proposal, which is extremely important. Energy is becoming a very hot political potato, and we wish that part of the Bill every success. We welcome the clause on sustainable development, but it seems an odd place to put the provision in the Bill. It is an afterthought, when it ought to be embedded in the whole culture of legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Laird, made the commendable suggestion of the inclusion of fair trade in this part of the Bill.
	Then we are back to dealing with crime and the extension of SOCAP, the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act. Those provisions are welcome and will, I hope, begin to eradicate those levels of crime in Northern Ireland that give us all cause for concern. We support those measures.
	Clause 28 brings Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the country as regards the part of SOCAP that deals with health and safety matters. It is right that it is the office and not the person of the Chief Constable which holds the responsibility for health and safety matters within the PSNI. I well remember the hours of deep discussion of how police officers should deal with health and safety matters when a Bill first included them a number of years ago. Some very silly arguments were put forward at that time about who would be responsible for dealing with breaches of the Act. I am glad that sense prevailed. I am sure that it will continue to do so in Northern Ireland should any of these matters be brought forward.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the contributions that have been made. I decided that I would wait until after the maiden speech before I commented on it. I share all the comments made by noble Lords about it. In a short, succinct maiden speech, the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, showed why he is a political leader of standing. I look forward to his contributions in this House. He has been particularly helpful, and I still have a modest amount of responsibility for answering for the Northern Ireland Office. His contribution has been unique. There is no one else in either of the Houses of Parliament who can speak as someone who experienced devolution at that time and at that level. I pay tribute to his work then and I thank him for his speech tonight. I shall do my best to answer his questions. His speech was valuable to the House and I am sure that it will be read by other Members.
	I apologise for the late timing of this debate. The business managers—of whom I am not one—made the decision some weeks ago to hold this debate. We can never forecast whether there will be a Statement—and we, the Government, cannot forecast whether that Statement will be repeated in your Lordships' House. I regret the late timing of this debate. However, this Bill will get a good deal of scrutiny in Grand Committee, assuming that the Motion for it to be considered there is passed—and later on the Floor of the House. So, there is no part of the Bill that will not be debated and I am certain that a substantial attendance in Grand Committee may surpass that for the Animal Welfare Bill that I experienced last week.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and all other Members for their broad support. There are some issues to be addressed and it is right that we make the position clear. Regarding the operational independence of the police, which the noble Lord raised, it goes without saying—which means that you need to say it—that that must be protected along with the independence of the judiciary. That is absolutely fundamental. I shall address the noble Lord's more detailed comments in a moment.
	The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, mentioned areas where there are some doubts. I understand that, but the hour is late. I can answer virtually every one of his doubts and I shall be more than happy to do that at greater length in Committee. It looks as if the abolition of the annual canvass might be a bad idea, but no one mentioned the access to other streams of information that will be available to the electoral registration officer—access to rating bills, housing transfers and other issues.
	There are many other ways to keep on track that are not always available to electoral registration officers in England. It is not as though there will be a snapshot in time and then nothing is done for 10 years, except on a voluntary basis. There will be active searching out of groups of people who are thought to be unregistered. Those will include transient populations. An annual canvass might be out, but that does not mean that you do not check houses in multiple occupation, for example, because we know that there is a transient population which might lose the right to vote. I am sure that we will have a good debate on political donations.
	The noble Lord, Lord Smith, referred to A Shared Future. I did not ask for advice on this because I want to deal with the issue in Grand Committee. His comments should be followed up, although it is not my role to suggest amendments. That is a fundamental document, but it was published when the general election had just been announced. I do not suggest that it disappeared because the Secretary of State, I and other Ministers have gone out of our way in the past 12 months to imbue its language, culture and philosophy in the changes that we make, such as in local government structure. I look forward to discussing that further in Committee.
	The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, gave the game away when he said that primary legislation does not come along very often but that when it does he will take full advantage of it. He then spoke about virtually everything except the Bill. I do not blame him for that; if I were in his position, I would do exactly the same. There is a bone of contention with those who do not like using Orders in Council—rightly so—as a way of legislating. I have said on more than one occasion in the past few months that there will be plenty of time in your Lordships' House to deal with such issues because a Bill—primary legislation—is coming from the other place and noble Lords could hang many debates on it. I suspect that that will arise in Grand Committee. I am grateful to the noble Lord—and the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney—for his personal remarks about me but he also said that he is still a terrier and I expect him to remain so.
	Without wanting to be unfair or to dismiss the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Laird, I have only one comment for him: he totally distorts the concept and ideas behind the Maze project. It is not just a stadium. There are 360 acres of land there and to talk about a shrine to terrorism is, frankly, an outrageous misuse of language. Neither the four parties nor the sporting authorities would have signed up to it—I refer to the work that was done long before I arrived in Northern Ireland—if that had been how it was put across. He distorts what is being planned. If he wants to table amendments on costing and everything else, we can debate the matter further. Some people say, "If it is not in Belfast, we do not want it". That is an outrageous view. There are people who actually believe that if it is not in the centre of the city they do not want it. It is a massive opportunity for Northern Ireland. The area will be visited by people from all sections of the islands of the British Isles. What is planned there will be quite phenomenal if it comes about—we have made only the masterplan available at the moment.
	The noble Baroness referred to loans transparency. I will touch briefly on some of the detailed points. I suspect that we will have a good debate in Grand Committee on the legal process for electoral rules in the Republic of Ireland, where there is spillover. They are not running our system; far from it. Nevertheless, there is interaction for reasons that we understand.
	The existing legislation places a duty on Northern Ireland Ministers to uphold the continuing independence of the judiciary; there is no question about that. We will in addition put forward a concordat between Her Majesty's Government and the Northern Ireland Executive that sets out the core principles of the independence and impartiality of the Northern Ireland judiciary. We could take that further in Grand Committee.
	We want Sinn Fein to take its seats on both the Policing Board and the district policing partnership as soon as possible but we have no intention of setting preconditions; that is not what this legislation is about and suggesting that is a total misreading of the situation. I understand that Sinn Fein has stated that it is considering its stance on policing. It will have to make a move because without that there is no future. The ball is in its court and it knows exactly what it must do. You do not have to use sugar-coated language. As I have said before, if you are not for the police it means that you are on the side of the muggers, the burglars, the rapists and the criminal element in society. That is not to say that you support every action of the police. You would not do that. Why would we have a police complaints authority if we did not envisage that there would be areas where the police's actions would have to be looked at? But we all know what we mean by supporting the police and the rule of law. We recognise it when we hear it. So far, we have not heard it from members of that party, and they know what they need to do.
	We will come to the issue of the timing of the canvass, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Smith, when we are in Grand Committee. He asked about an Order in Council. I do not apologise for that. We have a lot of primary legislation as orders which cannot be amended. The Order in Council in relation to anonymous registration will be introduced following the completion of the public consultation process which we are going to carry out on this issue. So it is not something that we will bounce on the House—far from it.
	The point that the noble Lord, Lord Smith, raised regarding the Electoral Commission and donations from Irish citizens will be taken on board. Clause 15 makes it clear that provision in relation to the extension of permissible donors can be made by the Secretary of State only following consultation with the Electoral Commission. So there is an indication that the Electoral Commission will be right in the middle of that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, raised many points, all of which were legitimate, but I will comment on the issue that he mentioned concerning restorative justice schemes. He is right in what he said. We arrived as a new team just over a year ago and discovered these voluntary schemes funded by private parties. There is no question that that arrangement will be unacceptable in the future, and we have made it clear that, where public money is in the system, the police must be involved in the process. Schemes which are unable to meet, or adhere to, the guidelines will have no recognition or assistance from the statutory sector, and the police will investigate any offences which may be reported to them in connection with how schemes operate.
	The Criminal Justice Inspectorate will undertake the role of verifying that accredited schemes conform to the requirements of the guidelines. Schemes will be inspected prior to accreditation, and regularly and randomly thereafter reports will be published. I cannot say at this point when the guidelines will be available. I accept that they certainly were not ready for this legislation.
	I turn to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney. When I was reading my briefing notes, I realised that there were words in bold that I had to stick to and other words where I could do my own thing. When I read out the words "full decommissioning", I realised that some people do not accept that that has happened. Nevertheless, going by the reports that have been published, the IMC confirmed in its 10th report that some arms may have been held without the knowledge of the leadership but that the amount of unsurrendered material was not significant in comparison with that which was decommissioned. Of course, illegal arms are still in the hands of other paramilitary groups, including the loyalists, and all those arms must be removed. We have complete confidence in General de Chastelain and his colleagues. They and the independent observers witnessed in September the destruction of a very large quantity of arms. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, their assessment that all weapons within the IRA's control have been put beyond use remains correct. Practically, politically and symbolically, this was a huge event, and we should not underestimate the fundamental change that it represents. I agree that symbolically it was significant.
	We will have all the time that is needed to discuss the Bill. It may come as a bit of a surprise to the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, as it did to me, to find that this place is kinder and gentler than he has been used to. Nevertheless, without qualification regarding the other end, I can confirm that he will find that on the majority of issues the quality of debate in this place is far superior compared with what he and I experienced in the other place. You can never "bull", because there is a world expert on some subjects sitting either in front of you or behind you, and that cannot be said about the other place.
	I am very grateful for noble Lords' contributions. I genuinely look forward immensely to the Committee and other stages of the Bill.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.

House adjourned at twenty minutes past nine o'clock.